Title | The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 225-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Christian Brockmann , Daniel Deckers , Stefano Valente |
Translator(s) |
About fifty years ago I published together with Fernand Bossier an article todemonstrate that theCommentary On the Soultraditionally attributed toSimplicius was not his work, but most probably that of a fellow member ofthe Athenian Academy, Priscian of Lydia.1An examination of the text tradi-tion of the commentary did not yield any indications to question the tradi-tional attribution. Nevertheless, arguments based on style, content, self-refer-ences are so convincing that it is now commonly accepted that the author ofthe commentary is not Simplicius.2The Hamburg colloquium offered me theincentive for a new and comprehensive study of the complicated text tradi-tion of this commentary, which enjoyed an extraordinary fortune in the re-ception of Aristotle’s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author’sname ‘Simplicius’ as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"245","_score":null,"_source":{"id":245,"authors_free":[{"id":314,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2775,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Christian Brockmann","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":null},{"id":2776,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Daniel Deckers ","free_first_name":"Daniel ","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":null},{"id":2777,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stefano Valente","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"About fifty years ago I published together with Fernand Bossier an article todemonstrate that theCommentary On the Soultraditionally attributed toSimplicius was not his work, but most probably that of a fellow member ofthe Athenian Academy, Priscian of Lydia.1An examination of the text tradi-tion of the commentary did not yield any indications to question the tradi-tional attribution. Nevertheless, arguments based on style, content, self-refer-ences are so convincing that it is now commonly accepted that the author ofthe commentary is not Simplicius.2The Hamburg colloquium offered me theincentive for a new and comprehensive study of the complicated text tradi-tion of this commentary, which enjoyed an extraordinary fortune in the re-ception of Aristotle\u2019s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author\u2019sname \u2018Simplicius\u2019 as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":245,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":245,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":245,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"unpublished","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2024]}
Title | Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 191-223 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Boureau, Mai-Lan |
Editor(s) | Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1574","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1574,"authors_free":[{"id":2744,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2745,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2746,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2747,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":572,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","free_first_name":"Mai-Lan","free_last_name":"Boureau","norm_person":{"id":572,"first_name":"Mai-Lan","last_name":"Boureau","full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":572,"full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1574,"section_of":1573,"pages":"191-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}
Title | The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 225-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1575","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1575,"authors_free":[{"id":2748,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2749,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2750,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2751,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1575,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}
Title | Simplicius’ Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 269-291 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | Brockmann, Christian , Deckers, Daniel , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1576,"authors_free":[{"id":2752,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2753,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2754,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2755,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1576,"section_of":1573,"pages":"269-291","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}
Title | Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity |
Pages | 171-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Marc-Antoine Gavray |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen- tator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno’s goal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not of any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert his readers, Parmenides’ opponents, through dialectical arguments (ἐπιχειρήματα). Therefore, this article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one’s master: Simpli- cius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position. Keywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi- sias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1590","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1590,"authors_free":[{"id":2789,"entry_id":1590,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marc-Antoine Gavray","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology\r\nand tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen-\r\ntator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno\u2019s\r\ngoal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not\r\nof any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert\r\nhis readers, Parmenides\u2019 opponents, through dialectical arguments (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Therefore,\r\nthis article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one\u2019s master: Simpli-\r\ncius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position.\r\nKeywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi-\r\nsias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1590,"section_of":1591,"pages":"171-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1591,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motta_Kurfess_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides is widely regarded as the most important and influential of the Presocratic philosophers. Born around 515 BCE in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, he is often considered not only the founder of Eleatic philosophy but also the father of deductive reasoning, the originator of rational theology, and the wellspring of the Western ontological tradition. The impact of Parmenides\u2019 account of Being or \u201cwhat is\u201d (\u1f10\u03cc\u03bd) on subsequent thought has been vast, lasting, and varied. It is also true, as David Sedley has written, that \u201cwith Parmenides, more than with most writers, any translation is an interpretation.\u201d\r\n\r\nThus, both the profundity of Parmenides\u2019 thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars\u2014just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity\u2014a period of focus in the present collection of essays\u2014when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously \u201charmonized\u201d points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework.\r\n\r\nThe \u201cEleatic school\u201d is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides\u2019 account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato\u2019s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato\u2019s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a\u2013b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato\u2019s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics.\r\n\r\nOf course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides\u2019 ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers.\r\n\r\nThe arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, \u201cBeing at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,\u201d Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, \u201cHealthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,\u201d Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, \u201cDualism and Platonism: Plutarch\u2019s Parmenides,\u201d Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch\u2019s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, \u201cClement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,\u201d William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria\u2019s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars\u2019 dismissal of both Xenophanes\u2019 status as an Eleatic and Clement\u2019s claim of Greek philosophy\u2019s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, \u201cParmenides\u2019 Philosophy through Plato\u2019s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,\u201d Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides\u2019 thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, \u201cPlatonism and Eleaticism,\u201d Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, \u201cAugustine and Eleatic Ontology,\u201d Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, \u201cProclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,\u201d Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, \u201cWhy Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno\u2019s Ontology in Simplicius,\u201d Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1591,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Federico II University Press","series":"Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni","volume":"","edition_no":"29","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}
Title | Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply. |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Platon und die Zeit |
Pages | 181-201 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Jan Opsomer |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time. Despite this "official" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner. The sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus’ durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought. The least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus’ various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or "transitional" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1604,"authors_free":[{"id":2809,"entry_id":1604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jan Opsomer","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply.","main_title":{"title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply."},"abstract":"The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time.\r\n\r\nDespite this \"official\" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner.\r\n\r\nThe sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus\u2019 durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought.\r\n\r\nThe least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus\u2019 various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or \"transitional\" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1604,"section_of":1603,"pages":"181-201","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1603,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platon und die Zeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Corcilius_M\u00e4nnlein_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der Band \"Platon und die Zeit\" umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen und gro\u00dfen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden \u00fcberdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen \u00fcber 'Zeit', die etwa \u00fcber Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu sp\u00e4teren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Sp\u00e4tantike reichen. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1603,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"T\u00fcbinger Platon Tage ","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2024]}
Title | The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert |
Translator(s) |
The chapter deals with Simplicius’ references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle’s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius’ account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1146","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1146,"authors_free":[{"id":1719,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1720,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1721,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality"},"abstract":"The chapter deals with Simplicius\u2019 references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius\u2019 account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1146,"section_of":379,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":379,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ulacco2023","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.\r\n\r\nBy studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":379,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 441-456 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 371-396 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nhzKYr8q8E565qL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1579","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1579,"authors_free":[{"id":2759,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2760,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nhzKYr8q8E565qL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1579,"section_of":1577,"pages":"371-396","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 151-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 175-206 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","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}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum |
Pages | 517-526 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criticizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibility of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle’s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides’ investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius’ opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/47OwUW41KSmtjb0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1549","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1549,"authors_free":[{"id":2706,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null},{"id":2707,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2708,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2709,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"},"abstract":"Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criti\u00adcizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibil\u00adity of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle\u2019s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides\u2019 investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius\u2019 opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/47OwUW41KSmtjb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1549,"section_of":1550,"pages":"517-526","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1550,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper |
Pages | CXIII-CLXXXVII |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd |
Editor(s) | Arnzen, Rüdiger |
Translator(s) |
The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group γ) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by EΨKbe and, to some extent, Λ—in K and be extensively, and in EΨ (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and Ψ are the most important ones. These claims about the extent of contamination from group γ in each part of the group constituted by EΨKbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius’ commentary and the β group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the γ group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius’ manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted. However, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the β group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the γ group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the EΨKbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the γ group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the EΨKbe group and the γ group can be identified as contaminations. The main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the EΨKbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1409","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1409,"authors_free":[{"id":2203,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":390,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","free_first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","free_last_name":"Hasper","norm_person":{"id":390,"first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","last_name":"Hasper","full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2204,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle\u2019s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group \u03b3) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by E\u03a8Kbe and, to some extent, \u039b\u2014in K and be extensively, and in E\u03a8 (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and \u03a8 are the most important ones.\r\n\r\nThese claims about the extent of contamination from group \u03b3 in each part of the group constituted by E\u03a8Kbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius\u2019 commentary and the \u03b2 group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the \u03b3 group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius\u2019 manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted.\r\n\r\nHowever, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the \u03b2 group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the \u03b3 group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the E\u03a8Kbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the \u03b3 group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the E\u03a8Kbe group and the \u03b3 group can be identified as contaminations.\r\n\r\nThe main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the E\u03a8Kbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":390,"full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1409,"section_of":1405,"pages":"CXIII-CLXXXVII","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1405,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor:\u00a0Pieter Sjoerd Hasper","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Arnzen2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1405,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Scientia Graeco-Arabica","volume":"30","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}
Title | Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition |
Pages | 178-200 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Aerts, Saskia |
Editor(s) | Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3. The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴ In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony. The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines. In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1473,"authors_free":[{"id":2549,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":543,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aerts, Saskia","free_first_name":"Saskia","free_last_name":"Aerts","norm_person":{"id":543,"first_name":"Saskia","last_name":"Aerts","full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2550,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2551,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2552,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":544,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","free_first_name":"Federico Maria","free_last_name":"Petrucci","norm_person":{"id":544,"first_name":"Federico Maria","last_name":"Petrucci","full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1027675344","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul","main_title":{"title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"},"abstract":"Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato\u2019s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.\r\n\r\nThe key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the \u2018harmony\u2019 that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. \u2018Harmony\u2019 translates the Greek symph\u014dnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.\u00b9 However, the term \u2018harmony\u2019 is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept\u2014 instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.\u00b2 Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.\u00b3 Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this \u2018harmonizing tendency,\u2019 as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators\u2019 approaches.\u2074\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics.\u2075 Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of \u2018harmony\u2019 each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.\r\n\r\nThe harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is \u2018merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.\u2019\u2076 Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias\u2019 discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.\r\n\r\nIn addition to showing the individuality of these commentators\u2019 approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SGsawecaEHSN9gD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":543,"full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":544,"full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1473,"section_of":1474,"pages":"178-200","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZaiPIkzZzpNqhmG","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}
Title | Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition |
Pages | 201-226 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Christian Tornau |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
After Proclus, the formula ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,⁸¹ and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius’ commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus’ praise for Syrianus,⁸² but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (ἀπὸ φωνῆς), ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.⁸³ In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed. So far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kathēgemōn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.⁸⁴ The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter’s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle’s deviation from his kathēgemōn Plato.⁸⁵ The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an ‘emulator’ of Plato (ζηλώσας, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),⁸⁶ but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays ‘how much he lags behind the guidance (ὑφήγησις) of his kathēgemōn.’⁸⁷ Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kathēgemōn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato’s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was ‘endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kathēgemōn [sc. Plato]’ and was himself able to offer theological guidance (ὑφήγησις) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.⁸⁸ Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism. Simplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,⁸⁹ takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus’ verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle ‘is not in disharmony with his kathēgemōn,’⁹⁰ implying—and sometimes stating—that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (κίνησις) and change (μεταβολή) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).⁹¹ Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle’s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato’s thought: It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (ἐννοίας) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25–26 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)⁹² When he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of ‘willing’ or ‘striving’ in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue: In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20–22 Diels.)⁹³ On this, too, Aristotle wants (βούλεται) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)⁹⁴ Simplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus’ own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius’ use of kathēgemōn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus’, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle’s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism. Concerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kathēgemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius’ lectures or written treatises.⁹⁵ However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria: My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .’ I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23–60.1 Diels.)⁹⁶ Simplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.⁹⁷ We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument. Ultimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus’ era. [conclusion p. 222-226] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/unoSzgVP7XRBEus |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1605","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1605,"authors_free":[{"id":2810,"entry_id":1605,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Christian Tornau","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Tornau","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"After Proclus, the formula ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,\u2078\u00b9 and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius\u2019 commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus\u2019 praise for Syrianus,\u2078\u00b2 but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2), ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.\u2078\u00b3 In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed.\r\n\r\nSo far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kath\u0113gem\u014dn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.\u2078\u2074 The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter\u2019s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle\u2019s deviation from his kath\u0113gem\u014dn Plato.\u2078\u2075 The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an \u2018emulator\u2019 of Plato (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),\u2078\u2076 but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays \u2018how much he lags behind the guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn.\u2019\u2078\u2077 Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato\u2019s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was \u2018endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kath\u0113gem\u014dn [sc. Plato]\u2019 and was himself able to offer theological guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.\u2078\u2078 Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,\u2078\u2079 takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus\u2019 verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle \u2018is not in disharmony with his kath\u0113gem\u014dn,\u2019\u2079\u2070 implying\u2014and sometimes stating\u2014that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (\u03ba\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and change (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f75) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).\u2079\u00b9 Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle\u2019s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato\u2019s thought:\r\n\r\n It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25\u201326 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)\u2079\u00b2\r\n\r\nWhen he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of \u2018willing\u2019 or \u2018striving\u2019 in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue:\r\n\r\n In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20\u201322 Diels.)\u2079\u00b3\r\n On this, too, Aristotle wants (\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)\u2079\u2074\r\n\r\nSimplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus\u2019 own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius\u2019 use of kath\u0113gem\u014dn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus\u2019, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle\u2019s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism.\r\n\r\nConcerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kath\u0113gemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius\u2019 lectures or written treatises.\u2079\u2075 However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria:\r\n\r\n My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. \u2018It is,\u2019 he said, \u2018no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .\u2019 I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23\u201360.1 Diels.)\u2079\u2076\r\n\r\nSimplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.\u2079\u2077 We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument.\r\n\r\nUltimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus\u2019 era. [conclusion p. 222-226]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1605,"section_of":1474,"pages":"201-226","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2021]}
Title | The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote |
Pages | 103-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ross, Alberto |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1561","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1561,"authors_free":[{"id":2727,"entry_id":1561,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ross, Alberto","free_first_name":"Alberto","free_last_name":"Ross","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1561,"section_of":1559,"pages":"103-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1559,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Relectures n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ross2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle\u2019s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NRy52L806zUPIxF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1559,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":" International Aristotle Studies","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
Title | The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | undefined |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc |
Pages | 183-214 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ulacco, Angela |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1567","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1567,"authors_free":[{"id":2736,"entry_id":1567,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy","main_title":{"title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1567,"section_of":1566,"pages":"183-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1566,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1566,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
Title | Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité |
Pages | 209-267 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei |
Translator(s) |
Les prières en prose de Simplicius, quant à elles, appartiennent toutes à la catégorie des prières conclusives – dont le modèle est fourni par la prière à Pan à la fin du Phèdre de Platon, qui est une référence pour les prières philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent être rapprochées de la prière finale de la Réponse à Por- phyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel « hymne » en prose de Proclus marquant une césure importante dans la Théologie Platoni- cienne 159. Les autres prières néoplatoniciennes que nous avons citées ou évoquées sont soit des prières initiales soit des prières intervenant dans le cours même d’une œuvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces prières – souvent complexes – et celles de Simplicius n’est pas illégitime et fait apparaître une indéniable parenté : Simplicius s’inscrit dans une tradition spécifiquement néoplatonicienne, où la rhéto- rique de la prière sert à l’expression d’un savoir théologique et d’une forme de piété personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore les accents. Ses prières sont tout à la fois des prières philosophiques et littéraires, des prières personnelles, des prières demandant des grâces particulières, mais aussi de véritables prières cultuelles, dans la mesure où, comme tous les professeurs néoplatoniciens, Simplicius célèbre par ses commentaires une véritable liturgie en l’honneur des dieux; et l’on a remarqué aussi l’affleurement d’une dimension théurgique que ses prières partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces différentes catégories ne doivent pas être opposées, car elles se fondent ici dans l’unité dynamique de l’acte de parole, qui est aussi un élan de l’âme. Car si ces prières sont des textes écrits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s’actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes révélés par l’analyse stylistique, qui demandent à être prononcés et entendus. Le raffinement de l’écriture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l’on se plaît à imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son privé, peut-être dans un discours « mental », prononcer ces prières et les faire résonner. Mais parce que ses prières sont l’achèvement de commentaires destinés à des « commençants » et non à des philosophes confirmés, Simplicius s’en tient à des déclarations théologiques élémentaires et s’exprime de façon beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient à maîtriser la solennité qui est de règle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses prédécesseurs néoplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses prières au dieu ou aux dieux qui veillent, de façon précise, sur l’ordre de réalité visé par son enseignement. À tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d’une ἀναγωγή indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui dépassera la discursivité et à son terme n’aura plus besoin du langage, ni même de prière, car elle s’accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1396","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1396,"authors_free":[{"id":2172,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2175,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2176,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":373,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Timotin, Andrei","free_first_name":"Andrei","free_last_name":"Timotin","norm_person":{"id":373,"first_name":"Andrei","last_name":"Timotin","full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1074855116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, quant \u00e0 elles, appartiennent toutes \u00e0 la cat\u00e9gorie des pri\u00e8res conclusives \u2013 dont le mod\u00e8le est fourni par la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 Pan \u00e0 la fin du Ph\u00e8dre de Platon, qui est une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour les pri\u00e8res philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent \u00eatre rapproch\u00e9es de la pri\u00e8re finale de la R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 Por-\r\nphyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel \u00ab hymne \u00bb en prose de Proclus marquant une c\u00e9sure importante dans la Th\u00e9ologie Platoni-\r\ncienne 159. Les autres pri\u00e8res n\u00e9oplatoniciennes que nous avons cit\u00e9es ou \u00e9voqu\u00e9es sont soit des pri\u00e8res initiales soit des pri\u00e8res intervenant \r\ndans le cours m\u00eame d\u2019une \u0153uvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces pri\u00e8res \u2013 souvent complexes \u2013 et celles de Simplicius n\u2019est pas \r\nill\u00e9gitime et fait appara\u00eetre une ind\u00e9niable parent\u00e9 : Simplicius s\u2019inscrit dans une tradition sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatonicienne, o\u00f9 la rh\u00e9to-\r\nrique de la pri\u00e8re sert \u00e0 l\u2019expression d\u2019un savoir th\u00e9ologique et d\u2019une forme de pi\u00e9t\u00e9 personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore \r\nles accents. Ses pri\u00e8res sont tout \u00e0 la fois des pri\u00e8res philosophiques et litt\u00e9raires, des pri\u00e8res personnelles, des pri\u00e8res demandant des gr\u00e2ces \r\nparticuli\u00e8res, mais aussi de v\u00e9ritables pri\u00e8res cultuelles, dans la mesure o\u00f9, comme tous les professeurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Simplicius c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \r\npar ses commentaires une v\u00e9ritable liturgie en l\u2019honneur des dieux; et l\u2019on a remarqu\u00e9 aussi l\u2019affleurement d\u2019une dimension th\u00e9urgique \r\nque ses pri\u00e8res partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces diff\u00e9rentes cat\u00e9gories ne doivent pas \u00eatre oppos\u00e9es, car elles se fondent \r\nici dans l\u2019unit\u00e9 dynamique de l\u2019acte de parole, qui est aussi un \u00e9lan de l\u2019\u00e2me. Car si ces pri\u00e8res sont des textes \u00e9crits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s\u2019actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s par l\u2019analyse stylistique, qui demandent \u00e0 \u00eatre prononc\u00e9s et entendus. \r\nLe raffinement de l\u2019\u00e9criture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l\u2019on se pla\u00eet \u00e0 imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son priv\u00e9, peut-\u00eatre dans un discours \u00ab mental \u00bb, prononcer ces pri\u00e8res et les faire r\u00e9sonner. Mais parce que ses pri\u00e8res sont l\u2019ach\u00e8vement de commentaires \r\ndestin\u00e9s \u00e0 des \u00ab commen\u00e7ants \u00bb et non \u00e0 des philosophes confirm\u00e9s, Simplicius s\u2019en tient \u00e0 des d\u00e9clarations th\u00e9ologiques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires et \r\ns\u2019exprime de fa\u00e7on beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient \u00e0 ma\u00eetriser la solennit\u00e9 qui est de \r\nr\u00e8gle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses pri\u00e8res au dieu ou aux \r\ndieux qui veillent, de fa\u00e7on pr\u00e9cise, sur l\u2019ordre de r\u00e9alit\u00e9 vis\u00e9 par son enseignement. \u00c0 tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d\u2019une \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui d\u00e9passera la discursivit\u00e9 et \u00e0 son terme n\u2019aura \r\nplus besoin du langage, ni m\u00eame de pri\u00e8re, car elle s\u2019accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":373,"full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1396,"section_of":1397,"pages":"209-267","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1397,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Th\u00e9ories et practiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l'antiquit\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann2020a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce livre \u00e9tudie les diff\u00e9rents modes de rapport entre les th\u00e9ories et les pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes de l\u2019histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la litt\u00e9rature patristique. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CTKw8APVQcq7YHq","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1397,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'\u00e9cole des hautes \u00e9tudes sciences religieuses","volume":"185","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1396,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2020]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see §5). Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714), Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker. Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia. One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1468","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1468,"authors_free":[{"id":2541,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","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}},{"id":2542,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480\u2013560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius\u2019 works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that \u201cthe ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted\u201d (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius\u2019 works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see \u00a75).\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),\r\n\r\n Simplicius\u2019 importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.\r\n\r\nNineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores\/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels\u2019 edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.\r\n\r\nOne of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius\u2019 writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors\u2014but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/archives\/sum2020\/entries\/simplicius\/","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1468,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
Title | What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus |
Pages | 115-141 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Longo, Angela |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota |
Translator(s) |
So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato’s Phaedrus (245c–e) and Aristotle’s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences. Plato’s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle’s belief that, despite the self-mover’s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul. What seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5). Our inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c–e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of “that which is moved by something else,” “that which moves by itself,” and “that which moves while remaining unmoved.” This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato’s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics. From the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato’s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue. Finally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias’ points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias’ scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius’ extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle. [conclusion p. 140-141] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1486","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1486,"authors_free":[{"id":2571,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2572,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2573,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":551,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","free_first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","free_last_name":"Manolea","norm_person":{"id":551,"first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","last_name":"Manolea","full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12962330X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus (245c\u2013e) and Aristotle\u2019s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences.\r\n\r\nPlato\u2019s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle\u2019s belief that, despite the self-mover\u2019s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5).\r\n\r\nOur inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c\u2013e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of \u201cthat which is moved by something else,\u201d \u201cthat which moves by itself,\u201d and \u201cthat which moves while remaining unmoved.\u201d This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics.\r\n\r\nFrom the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato\u2019s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue.\r\n\r\nFinally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias\u2019 points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias\u2019 scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius\u2019 extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle.\r\n[conclusion p. 140-141]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":551,"full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1486,"section_of":1487,"pages":"115-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1487,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias\u2019 philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias\u2019 work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias\u2019 commentary\u2014the only extant work of Hermias\u2014which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/odl9mOkFu3fCl3K","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1487,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Brill","series":"Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition","volume":"24","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
Title | Simplicius on the Void |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica |
Pages | 231-255 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Nikulin, Dmitri |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis |
Translator(s) |
The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius’ Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle’s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle’s arguments, which abound in subtle observations, Simplicius comes up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed to the void, demonstrating the impossible consequences of its acceptance. Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":2683,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":568,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","free_first_name":"Dmitri","free_last_name":"Nikulin","norm_person":{"id":568,"first_name":"Dmitri","last_name":"Nikulin","full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17302503X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2687,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2688,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":431,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","free_first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","free_last_name":"Taormina","norm_person":{"id":431,"first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","last_name":"Taormina","full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305185","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2689,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":569,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Walter, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"Walter","norm_person":{"id":569,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"Walter","full_name":"Walter, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1127658751","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Void","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Void"},"abstract":"The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle\u2019s arguments, which abound in subtle observations, Simplicius comes up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed to the void, demonstrating the impossible consequences of its acceptance. Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":568,"full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":431,"full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":569,"full_name":"Walter, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1538,"section_of":1539,"pages":"231-255","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1539,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In diesem Sammelband wird die Idee des K\u00f6rpers und der K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike untersucht. Dazu werden Fragen der Ontologie, der Mathematik, der Physik, der Astronomie, der Biologie, der Anthropologie, der Politik, der Theologie und der \u00c4sthetik behandelt. Die Bedeutung des Themas ergibt sich sowohl aus seiner historischen Relevanz (f\u00fcr die Bildende Kunst, die Literatur, die Fachwissenschaften, die Religion und die allgemeine Kulturgeschichte) als auch aufgrund seiner philosophischen Wichtigkeit. Vom philosophischen Standpunkt betrachtet enth\u00e4lt die sp\u00e4tantike Reflexion \u00fcber K\u00f6rperlichkeit eine beeindruckende F\u00fclle an Bedeutungen, die in diesem Band diskutiert werden.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWbfOvt30jR6Y1U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1539,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"Academia philosophical studies","volume":"71","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
Title | Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 159-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"655","_score":null,"_source":{"id":655,"authors_free":[{"id":943,"entry_id":655,"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}},{"id":944,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and\r\nhis interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian\u2019s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions \u2013 which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts\r\nand authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of\r\nhandling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features\r\njustify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius\u2019 aim to annotate Aristotle\u2019s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":655,"section_of":289,"pages":"159-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 69-99 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1320","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1320,"authors_free":[{"id":1954,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2376,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"},"abstract":"This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QL5VZHREOe1cXap","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1320,"section_of":289,"pages":"69-99","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platon und die Physis |
Pages | 241-253 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann |
Translator(s) |
In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2381,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":131,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Koch, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Koch","norm_person":{"id":131,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Koch","full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102787925X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":454,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","norm_person":{"id":454,"first_name":"Irmgard","last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122904796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","free_first_name":"Niels","free_last_name":"Weidtmann ","norm_person":{"id":455,"first_name":"Niels","last_name":"Weidtmann","full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121934438","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":131,"full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":454,"full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":455,"full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im \u00fcbertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder G\u00f6ttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und p\u00e4dagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgen\u00f6ssische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen \u00dcberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist f\u00fcr die genannten Fragestellungen h\u00f6chst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung sp\u00e4terer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch |
Pages | 136-153 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna |
Editor(s) | Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini |
Translator(s) |
The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch’s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise "On the Unity of the Academy" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction / Conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1421","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1421,"authors_free":[{"id":2230,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":405,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","free_first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","free_last_name":"Simonetti","norm_person":{"id":405,"first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","last_name":"Simonetti","full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144280753","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2434,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":480,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","free_first_name":"Sophia","free_last_name":"Xenophontos","norm_person":{"id":480,"first_name":"Sophia","last_name":"Xenophontos","full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1112475400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2435,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":481,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","free_first_name":"Aikaterini","free_last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","norm_person":{"id":481,"first_name":"Aikaterini","last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036691888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"},"abstract":"The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch\u2019s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise \"On the Unity of the Academy\" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction \/ Conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":405,"full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":480,"full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":481,"full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1421,"section_of":1422,"pages":"136-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1422,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45-125 AD) makes a fascinating case-study for reception studies not least because of his uniquely extensive and diverse afterlife. Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plutarch offers the first comprehensive analysis of Plutarch\u2019s rich reception history from the Roman Imperial period through Late Antiquity and Byzantium to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and the modern era. The thirty-seven chapters that make up this volume, written by a remarkable line-up of experts, explore the appreciation, contestation and creative appropriation of Plutarch himself, his thought and work in the history of literature across various cultures and intellectual traditions in Europe, America, North Africa, and the Middle East. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1422,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Companions to Classical Reception","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies |
Pages | 141-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sanchez, Liliana Carolina |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš |
Translator(s) |
The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle’s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually “taken for granted instead of explained” (Baltussen 2008, 22). I’m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but ‘Simplicius’ in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship. The reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen’s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator’s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their “harmonization” project of Plato’s and Aristotle’s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle’s philosophical aims more than explain them. In the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle’s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is ‘Simplicius’’ commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle’s thought. My aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text. In order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by ‘Simplicius’ to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle’s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology. By doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is. [introduction p. 141-142] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1492","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1492,"authors_free":[{"id":2586,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":554,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":" Sanchez, Liliana Carolina","free_first_name":"Liliana Carolina","free_last_name":" Sanchez","norm_person":{"id":554,"first_name":"Liliana Carolina ","last_name":"Sanchez","full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2587,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2590,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":555,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_last_name":"Nejeschleba,","norm_person":{"id":555,"first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","last_name":"Nejeschleba,","full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103057413","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 "},"abstract":"The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle\u2019s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually \u201ctaken for granted instead of explained\u201d (Baltussen 2008, 22). I\u2019m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but \u2018Simplicius\u2019 in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship.\r\n\r\nThe reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen\u2019s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator\u2019s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their \u201charmonization\u201d project of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle\u2019s philosophical aims more than explain them.\r\n\r\nIn the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle\u2019s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is \u2018Simplicius\u2019\u2019 commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle\u2019s thought.\r\n\r\nMy aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text.\r\n\r\nIn order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by \u2018Simplicius\u2019 to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle\u2019s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology.\r\n\r\nBy doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is.\r\n[introduction p. 141-142]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":554,"full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":555,"full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1492,"section_of":1493,"pages":"141-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1493,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3oPlmdyJ3ZKj82v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1493,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Pages | 95-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chriti, Maria |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1512,"authors_free":[{"id":2625,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":561,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chriti, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Chriti","norm_person":{"id":561,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Chriti","full_name":"Chriti, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2628,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2629,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the \u201cfall\u201dof the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul\u2019s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul\u2019s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul\u2019s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of \u2018diversity\u2019in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of \u2018decay\u2019and \u2018obligation\u2019. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":561,"full_name":"Chriti, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1512,"section_of":1513,"pages":"95-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1513,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gpbk6H9CplQZVge","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 101-125 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities. From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1154","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1154,"authors_free":[{"id":1728,"entry_id":1154,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.\r\nFrom our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding\r\nof Simplicius\u2019 way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius\u2019 interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1154,"section_of":289,"pages":"101-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 185-223 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, C. |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er: The souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (ἐνδυσαμέναις) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] – for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (γενομέναις ἀπαθέσι παθητικαῖς, ἀμορφώτοις μορφωτικαῖς) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate. Myths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-scène of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are ‘both together and have a twofold intellect’, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect ‘is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,’ our true intellect ‘is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.’ [conclusion p. 211-212] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iQkklQKce7ANXjV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1170","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1170,"authors_free":[{"id":1746,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2507,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis","main_title":{"title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"},"abstract":"Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er:\r\n\r\nThe souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] \u2013 for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate.\r\n\r\nMyths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-sc\u00e8ne of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are \u2018both together and have a twofold intellect\u2019, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect \u2018is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,\u2019 our true intellect \u2018is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.\u2019 [conclusion p. 211-212]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iQkklQKce7ANXjV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1170,"section_of":289,"pages":"185-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
Pages | 569-579 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristotle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Simplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the Enchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good working picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] While it would be unsafe to say that Simplicius does not misinterpret Plato at times (indeed, what commentator, ancient or modern, gets an author correct all of the time?), he does serve as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed—at times repetitive—but generally useful companion. Only further analysis into his reading and interpretation of Plato can provide the answers we would need to fully resolve that question. But I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today—as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] While it would be unsafe to say that Simplicius does not misinterpret Plato at times (indeed, what commentator, ancient or modern, gets an author correct all of the time?), he does serve as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed\u2014at times repetitive\u2014but generally useful companion. Only further analysis into his reading and interpretation of Plato can provide the answers we would need to fully resolve that question.\r\n\r\nBut I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today\u2014as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | § 162. Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3) |
Pages | 2060-2084 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Riedweg, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar |
Translator(s) |
Der Eintrag bietet eine ausführliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschließlich einer Diskussion über sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios’ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manichäismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"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}},{"id":939,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":386,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Riedweg","norm_person":{"id":386,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Riedweg","full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111151228","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":387,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Wyrwa","norm_person":{"id":387,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Wyrwa","full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142943592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Mehr als f\u00fcnfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet f\u00fchrende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler pr\u00e4sentieren in diesem f\u00fcnften und letzten Band der Reihe \u00abDie Philosophie der Antike\u00bb das \u00fcberaus facettenreiche pagane, j\u00fcdische und fr\u00fchchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus \u2013 einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendl\u00e4ndischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, f\u00fcr die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle f\u00fcr Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.\r\n\r\nDer Disposition liegt die \u00dcberzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der j\u00fcdisch-\u00adchristlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei gro\u00dfe weltanschauliche Bl\u00f6cke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde f\u00fcr den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gew\u00e4hlt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Sch\u00fcler-Verh\u00e4ltnis, die Schulzugeh\u00f6rigkeit eines Autors und schlie\u00dflich ebenfalls seine religi\u00f6se Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung ber\u00fccksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil \u00fcberraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religions\u00fcbergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art \u00e4u\u00dferst plastisch beschrieben und f\u00fcr die Gegenwart erschlossen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
Pages | 213-230 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kraus, Manfred |
Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
Translator(s) |
Although Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De cáelo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De Cáelo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke’s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius’ commentary and Moerbeke’s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke’s renderings of the seven direct quotations of passages from Parmenides exhibited in In De Cáelo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":389,"authors_free":[{"id":510,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":221,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraus, Manfred","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":221,"first_name":"Manfred","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069796840","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2109,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2110,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Pilar","free_last_name":"Spangenberg","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Although Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s treatise De c\u00e1elo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De C\u00e1elo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke\u2019s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius\u2019 commentary and Moerbeke\u2019s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke\u2019s renderings of the seven direct quotations of \r\npassages from Parmenides exhibited in In De C\u00e1elo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":221,"full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":389,"section_of":1366,"pages":"213-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pulpito_Spangenberg2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":389,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Axiothea","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"213-230"}},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgewählt, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Matthias Perkams |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist |
Pages | 547-675 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simplicius , Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Perkams, Matthias , Busche, Hubertus |
Translator(s) | Perkams, Matthias(Perkams, Matthias) , |
Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren: Eine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, nämlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und Überleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen. Die zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles’ Lehre vom aktiven Geist. Diese äußerst knappe Charakterisierung der Stärken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift lässt seine Schwächen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung. Priskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, „die Übereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben“; anders gesagt, erklärt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst für die Wahrheit hält. Das wichtigste Kriterium für diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich. Konsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen häufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten könnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erklärt. Trotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenmächtig sind, darf man nicht übersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalität im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken. Insofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel für einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, für den Aristoteles nicht nur „Platons bester Ausleger“ ist, sondern auch eine „weitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail“ liefert, „was dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erklärte“. Auf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was für ihn Anlass zu einer ausführlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1443,"authors_free":[{"id":2305,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2306,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2307,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2308,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":442,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Busche, Hubertus","free_first_name":"Hubertus","free_last_name":"Busche","norm_person":{"id":442,"first_name":"Hubertus","last_name":"Busche","full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118125311","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2309,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams","main_title":{"title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"},"abstract":"Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren:\r\n\r\nEine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, n\u00e4mlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und \u00dcberleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen.\r\n\r\nDie zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles\u2019 Lehre vom aktiven Geist.\r\n\r\nDiese \u00e4u\u00dferst knappe Charakterisierung der St\u00e4rken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift l\u00e4sst seine Schw\u00e4chen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung.\r\n\r\nPriskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, \u201edie \u00dcbereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben\u201c; anders gesagt, erkl\u00e4rt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst f\u00fcr die Wahrheit h\u00e4lt. Das wichtigste Kriterium f\u00fcr diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich.\r\n\r\nKonsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen h\u00e4ufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten k\u00f6nnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erkl\u00e4rt.\r\n\r\nTrotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenm\u00e4chtig sind, darf man nicht \u00fcbersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalit\u00e4t im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken.\r\n\r\nInsofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel f\u00fcr einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, f\u00fcr den Aristoteles nicht nur \u201ePlatons bester Ausleger\u201c ist, sondern auch eine \u201eweitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail\u201c liefert, \u201ewas dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erkl\u00e4rte\u201c.\r\n\r\nAuf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was f\u00fcr ihn Anlass zu einer ausf\u00fchrlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":442,"full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1443,"section_of":246,"pages":"547-675","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":246,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Busche2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Dieser Band vereinigt erstmals alle erhaltenen antiken Interpretationen zu der von Aristoteles in De anima III, v.a. in Kap. 4-5, skizzierten Lehre vom Geist (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) im Original und in deutscher Sprache. Diese Texte bieten nicht nur Interpretationen eines der meistkommentierten Lehrst\u00fccke der ganzen Philosophiegeschichte; vielmehr enthalten sie zum Teil auch eigenst\u00e4ndige philosophische Auseinandersetzungen \u00fcber den wirkenden und leidenden, den menschlichen und den g\u00f6ttlichen Geist sowie \u00fcber die M\u00f6glichkeiten geistigen Erfassens \u00fcberhaupt.\r\n\r\nIm Einzelnen enth\u00e4lt der Band die Deutungen von Theophrast (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Alexander von Aphrodisias (De anima und De intellectu [umstritten]; um 200), Themistios (4. Jh.), Johannes Philoponos, Priskian (Theophrast-Metaphrase), Pseudo-Simplikios, d.h. Priskian aus Lydien (De-anima-Kommentar; alle nach 500) und Pseudo-Philoponos, d.h. Stephanos von Alexandria (um 550). Da sich diese Kommentatoren nicht selten auf fr\u00fchere Ausleger beziehen, wurde die Zusammenstellung um weitere wichtige Zeugnisse erg\u00e4nzt, z. B. zur Aristoteles-Deutung des Xenokrates sowie eines Anonymus des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zwei allgemeine Einf\u00fchrungstexte der Herausgeber informieren \u00fcber die systematischen Probleme der Auslegung von De anima III 4-5 sowie \u00fcber die antike Auslegungsgeschichte dieses Textes. Spezielle Einleitungen zu den acht Interpretationen informieren \u00fcber Leben und Werk ihrer Autoren sowie \u00fcber die Besonderheiten ihrer Interpretation. Die Anmerkungen in den Anh\u00e4ngen geben weitere gedankliche, sachliche oder historische Erl\u00e4uterungen zu einzelnen Textstellen. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":246,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Felix Meiner Verlag","series":"Philosophische Bibliothek","volume":"694","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies |
Pages | 227-242 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Parsons, Bethany |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1488,"authors_free":[{"id":2576,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":552,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Parsons, Bethany","free_first_name":"Bethany","free_last_name":"Parsons","norm_person":{"id":552,"first_name":"Bethany","last_name":"Parsons","full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2577,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2578,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle, A.","free_first_name":"Danielle, A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":552,"full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1488,"section_of":1489,"pages":"227-242","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1489,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0kL235IRMmorwaZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1489,"pubplace":"Gloucestershire","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 127-157 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Griffin, Michael |
Editor(s) | Benedikt Strobel |
Translator(s) |
This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher—or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as ἐξηγητής—to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or ἔννοιαι of the student or philosopher. (I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or ἔννοιαι might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the "great texts" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius’ attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices. I focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490–c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (ἐξηγητής) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23–29), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as "research" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus’ Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87–90); Simplicius’ interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way. In both these areas—discovery and pedagogy—I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the "greats" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (ἔννοιαι) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10–13, 4). [introduction p. 127-128] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1546","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1546,"authors_free":[{"id":2702,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":null},{"id":2812,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Benedikt Strobel","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education","main_title":{"title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education"},"abstract":"This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher\u2014or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\u2014to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 of the student or philosopher.\r\n\r\n(I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the \"great texts\" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius\u2019 attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices.\r\n\r\nI focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490\u2013c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23\u201329), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as \"research\" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus\u2019 Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87\u201390); Simplicius\u2019 interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way.\r\n\r\nIn both these areas\u2014discovery and pedagogy\u2014I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the \"greats\" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (\u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10\u201313, 4). [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1546,"section_of":289,"pages":"127-157","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 9-43 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato’s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato. Porphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato’s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato’s thinking on a given issue. This is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry’s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1547","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1547,"authors_free":[{"id":2703,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":null},{"id":2704,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?","main_title":{"title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?"},"abstract":"Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato\u2019s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato.\r\n\r\nPorphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato\u2019s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato\u2019s thinking on a given issue.\r\n\r\nThis is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1547,"section_of":289,"pages":"9-43","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 157-179 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude. Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste. La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs. L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories. À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes. De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26). Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos. Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32). Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories. Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste. Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques. [conclusion p. 176-177] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"Nous r\u00e9sumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette \u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nAlexandre souscrit \u00e0 la th\u00e8se selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premi\u00e8res par rapport aux genres et aux esp\u00e8ces, mais cela n\u2019implique \u00e0 ses yeux aucune cons\u00e9quence particulariste ou nominaliste.\r\n\r\nLa d\u00e9finition des substances premi\u00e8res qu\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sente dans les Cat\u00e9gories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s\u2019appliquer \u00e0 la forme s\u00e9par\u00e9e, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.\r\n\r\nL\u2019existence de formes dans la mati\u00e8re ne contredit pas le crit\u00e8re de substantialit\u00e9 \u00e9tabli dans les Cat\u00e9gories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant \u00eatre \u00ab dans un sujet \u00bb au sens des Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du enkor\u014ds du trait\u00e9 permet \u00e0 Alexandre de lire les Cat\u00e9gories de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la s\u00e9mantique de ce trait\u00e9 \u00e0 son ontologie des natures immanentes.\r\n\r\nDe notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour int\u00e9grer les Cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 sa m\u00e9taphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l\u2019argument typique des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l\u2019ontologie des Cat\u00e9gories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nales que refl\u00e8te notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).\r\n\r\nBien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument \u00e0 la position d\u2019Alexandre : d\u2019abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, sugg\u00e8re qu\u2019Aristote, dans les Cat\u00e9gories, consid\u00e8re les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premi\u00e8res en tant qu\u2019elles sont premi\u00e8res quoad nos.\r\n\r\nUne fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9e cette solution canonique et bien attest\u00e9e depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s\u2019attaque \u00e0 Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premi\u00e8res par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).\r\n\r\nComme nous l\u2019avons montr\u00e9 plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l\u2019ontologie de la nature commune qu\u2019Alexandre d\u00e9veloppait pour d\u00e9fendre sa position. Cependant, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premi\u00e8res dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu\u2019Aristote \u00e9tablit dans les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nPour Alexandre, la lecture s\u00e9mantique des Cat\u00e9gories n\u2019avait donc pas pour but de d\u00e9tacher la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkor\u014ds, Alexandre rattache de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s \u00e9troite la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 son ontologie essentialiste.\r\n\r\nPar ailleurs, la lecture s\u00e9mantique du trait\u00e9 est parmi les \u00e9l\u00e9ments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Bo\u00e9thos. Tous deux pensent que les Cat\u00e9gories portent sur les mots signifiants. La diff\u00e9rence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la mani\u00e8re de concevoir la signification et dans les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s ontologiques qu\u2019ils mettent en \u0153uvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines s\u00e9mantiques.\r\n[conclusion p. 176-177]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 217-235 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée : Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours. Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles. Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 : « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου). Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues : Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel, Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse. La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel. Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde. Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non. [introduction p. 217-219] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"Les commentaires aristot\u00e9liciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement diff\u00e9rents si l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien n\u2019avait pas eu acc\u00e8s aux commentaires d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tudiant le plus attentif d\u2019Aristote \u00bb et ses abondantes r\u00e9f\u00e9rences aux explications de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien montrent de mani\u00e8re \u00e9loquente que les commentaires de ce dernier \u00e9taient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d\u2019expliquer plusieurs difficult\u00e9s du texte d\u2019Aristote, exception faite des cas o\u00f9 Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-m\u00eame) Platon. Dans l\u2019un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprim\u00e9e :\r\n\r\n Je crois qu\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle mani\u00e8re, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, les discours d\u2019Aristote. Pourtant, \u00e0 propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu\u2019il ne respecte plus le but de l\u2019antilogie d\u2019Aristote, but qui vise l\u2019apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte \u00e0 Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu\u2019il n\u2019essaie pas uniquement de r\u00e9futer, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fr\u00e9quemment m\u00eame pas le sens apparent de son discours.\r\n\r\nPar l\u2019emploi de l\u2019adverbe \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00abmalicieusement\u00bb, \u00abavec perfidie\u00bb), Simplicius sugg\u00e8re \u00e0 ses lecteurs qu\u2019Alexandre connaissait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 le vrai objectif des critiques d\u2019Aristote, qu\u2019il a pourtant cach\u00e9 \u00e0 ses propres lecteurs \u00e0 cause de son appartenance \u00e0 une secte philosophique, \u00e0 savoir celle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens. Les critiques d\u2019Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci p\u00e9dagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en \u0153uvre pour prot\u00e9ger les \u00e2mes philosophantes des contresens qu\u2019elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compr\u00e9hensibles.\r\n\r\nLes critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l\u2019\u00e2me, comme dans le passage pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment cit\u00e9, o\u00f9 Aristote, selon l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre \u00e0 une critique apparente du Tim\u00e9e 36e2-4 :\r\n\r\n \u00ab [L\u2019\u00e2me], tiss\u00e9e \u00e0 travers le ciel, du centre \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 [\u2026] commen\u00e7a une vie perp\u00e9tuelle et raisonnable \u00bb (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u2026] \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\r\n\r\nSi Aristote a ainsi critiqu\u00e9 Platon, c\u2019est pour que les philosophes d\u00e9butants ne pensent pas, \u00e0 cause de l\u2019usage en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 m\u00e9taphorique du participe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (\u00abtiss\u00e9e\u00bb), que l\u2019\u00e2me du monde, mat\u00e9riellement pr\u00e9sente dans le corps c\u00e9leste, le contraigne \u00e0 se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux cons\u00e9quences non voulues :\r\n\r\n Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,\r\n Que l\u2019\u00e2me, exer\u00e7ant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.\r\n\r\nLa critique d\u2019Aristote concerne aussi la th\u00e8se, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut \u00ab engendr\u00e9 \u00bb (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) dans le temps, th\u00e8se qu\u2019Aristote attribue \u00e0 Platon seulement \u00e0 un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degr\u00e9 de connaissance des \u00e2mes philosophantes. Ces derni\u00e8res n\u2019arrivent pas encore \u00e0 saisir le sens de \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 ce qui n\u2019est pas \u00ab auto-constituant \u00bb (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), mais qui re\u00e7oit son existence d\u2019une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9, aussi sous un mode intemporel.\r\n\r\nDu point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de pr\u00e9liminaire une fausse interpr\u00e9tation de Platon, afin que les \u00e9tudiants ne soient pas amen\u00e9s \u00e0 croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation du monde.\r\n\r\nLes critiques que Simplicius adresse \u00e0 Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au trait\u00e9 Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, sont toutes li\u00e9es au fait que l\u2019Aphrodisien interpr\u00e8te Aristote \u00e0 la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le probl\u00e8me philosophique que nous nous proposons d\u2019examiner ici, \u00e0 savoir celui de savoir si l\u2019univers a une cause efficiente ou non.\r\n[introduction p. 217-219]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse |
Pages | 239-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Baghdassarian, Fabienne |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1325,"authors_free":[{"id":1959,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2380,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comn\u00e8ne. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1325,"section_of":1327,"pages":"239-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M6C8JJNritLlEmQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World |
Pages | 49-59 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Van Riel, Gerd |
Editor(s) | Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph |
Translator(s) |
This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1389,"authors_free":[{"id":2150,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2153,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":345,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roskam, Geert","free_first_name":"Geert","free_last_name":"Roskam","norm_person":{"id":345,"first_name":"Geert","last_name":"Roskam","full_name":"Roskam, Geert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1076800238","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2154,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":346,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","free_first_name":"Joseph","free_last_name":"Verheyden","norm_person":{"id":346,"first_name":"Joseph","last_name":"Verheyden","full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138082944","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility","main_title":{"title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility"},"abstract":"This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":345,"full_name":"Roskam, Geert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":346,"full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1389,"section_of":1390,"pages":"49-59","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1390,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Roskam_Verheyden2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The present volume contains the proceedings of an international colloquium held in February 2015 at the Arts Faculty of the KU Leuven that brought together specialists in (late) ancient philosophy and early Christian studies. Contributors were asked to reflect on the reception of two foundational texts dealing with the origin of the world - the third book of Plato's Timaeus and the Genesis account of the creation. The organizers had a double aim: They wished to offer a forum for furthering the dialogue between colleagues working in these respective fields and to do this by studying in a comparative perspective both a crucial topic shared by these traditions and the literary genres through which this topic was developed and transmitted. The two reference texts have been studied in antiquity in a selective way, through citations and essays dealing with specific issues, and in a more systematic way through commentaries. The book is divided into three parts. The first one deals with the so-called Middle- and Neoplatonic tradition. The second part is dedicated to the Christian tradition and contains papers on several of the more important Christian authors who dealt with the Hexaemeron. The third part is entitled \"Some Other Voices\" and deals with authors and movements that combine elements from various traditions. Special attention is given to the nature and dynamics of the often close relationship between the various traditions as envisaged by Jewish-Christian authors and to the remarkable lack of interest from the Neoplatonists for \"the other side\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UyhI8rvumD2a8sx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1390,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Categories. Histories and Perspectives |
Pages | 35-48 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo |
Translator(s) |
The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle’s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle’s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus. The present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories’ aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories’ σκοπός, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise’s σκοπός was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says: “For the goal (σκοπός), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.”¹ However, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the σκοπός, they do not agree on the content of the Categories’ σκοπός. We will have a closer look at Simplicius’ presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists. There are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the σκοπός debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius’ presentation of the σκοπός debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. Interestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as “highest genera,” “highest predicates,” or “common items.” I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts—participation, predication, and universality—which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1407,"authors_free":[{"id":2198,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2199,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":388,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"D'Anna","norm_person":{"id":388,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"D'Anna","full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13968588X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2200,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":389,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","free_first_name":"Lorenzo","free_last_name":"Fossati","norm_person":{"id":389,"first_name":"Lorenzo","last_name":"Fossati","full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle\u2019s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus.\r\n\r\nThe present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories\u2019 aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise\u2019s \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says:\r\n\r\n \u201cFor the goal (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.\u201d\u00b9\r\n\r\nHowever, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, they do not agree on the content of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2. We will have a closer look at Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists.\r\n\r\nThere are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework.\r\n\r\nInterestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as \u201chighest genera,\u201d \u201chighest predicates,\u201d or \u201ccommon items.\u201d I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts\u2014participation, predication, and universality\u2014which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":388,"full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":389,"full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1407,"section_of":1408,"pages":"35-48","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1408,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2am9O0Ljwyc5hy1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation |
Pages | 249-272 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra |
Translator(s) |
Saisir le but (σκοπός) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au début de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d’Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne « les principes de toutes les réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles ». Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu’en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, à la différence de l’approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des êtres naturels. Le présent traité a pour but d’enseigner ce qui appartient en commun à toutes les réalités naturelles en tant qu’elles sont naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les Péripatéticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la matière et, en général, les éléments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale. La Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux réalités naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu’il répartit en deux groupes. Il reconnaît une supériorité à la cause productrice et à la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l’indice dans l’ordre que suit Aristote : matérielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premières sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et séparées de lui. Ces dernières sont plus proprement principes au sens où elles désignent ce d’où le produit provient et à quoi il retourne, tout en différant de lui. La séparation renferme le moyen d’en sortir, appelant à une transcendance qui reste néanmoins sur le même plan, celui de la physique. À ce degré, la séparation ne signifie pas la supériorité ontologique du principe, mais seulement son extériorité. De cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu’Aristote mène une étude conversive des causes, puisqu’il part de la plus basse (la cause matérielle étudiée par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication à la matière) et termine par la plus éminente (la cause finale, préoccupation ultime du physicien selon le Phédon, où Socrate enjoint à chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient à exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d’Aristote à provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la nécessité de dépasser le plan de la physique pour s’élever à d’autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu’Aristote opère reste néanmoins dans le plan d’immanence des réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique évacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale. Simplicius ne s’étend pas sur cette décision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le modèle intellectif qui préside à l’information selon l’aptitude de ce qui le reçoit, « l’essence idéale par soi à l’image de laquelle est façonné ce qui est ici-bas ». Quant à la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (δι’ οὗ) à l’égard de ce par quoi (ὑφ’ οὗ) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice intermédiaire et imparfaite, au sens où elle meut tout en étant elle-même mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c’est en raison de sa fonction première : commentant le Timée, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale désigne le principe directement moteur de la matière et de la forme, mais dont le statut est intermédiaire car son rôle moteur provient d’un principe supérieur. Par là, il désigne plus précisément l’Âme du monde, dont la motricité procède ultimement du Démiurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n’ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu’elles font intervenir des principes supérieurs aux réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Idées et le Démiurge. En résumé, la Physique s’occupe des formes dans la matière, les formes non séparées, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l’intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la représentation. Autrement dit, elle vise à comprendre les formes dans la matière grâce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adaptés, sans faire appel à d’autres modes supérieurs de compréhension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes nécessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d’un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent. Sur cette base, je voudrais examiner où Simplicius situe la Physique dans l’histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l’histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la systématicité qu’il trouve chez les philosophes présocratiques. Il s’agira d’un côté de comprendre comment ces principes s’articulent à ceux privilégiés par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes supérieures, et de l’autre de montrer en quoi les Présocratiques expliquent le développement à la fois historique et taxinomique du système physique du néoplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1503,"authors_free":[{"id":2611,"entry_id":1503,"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}},{"id":2612,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2613,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":553,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","free_first_name":"Alexandra","free_last_name":"Michalewski","norm_person":{"id":553,"first_name":"Alexandra","last_name":"Michalewski","full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194315127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2","main_title":{"title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2"},"abstract":"Saisir le but (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au d\u00e9but de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne \u00ab les principes de toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles \u00bb. Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu\u2019en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de l\u2019approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des \u00eatres naturels.\r\n\r\nLe pr\u00e9sent trait\u00e9 a pour but d\u2019enseigner ce qui appartient en commun \u00e0 toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant qu\u2019elles sont naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la mati\u00e8re et, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, les \u00e9l\u00e9ments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nLa Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu\u2019il r\u00e9partit en deux groupes. Il reconna\u00eet une sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 \u00e0 la cause productrice et \u00e0 la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l\u2019indice dans l\u2019ordre que suit Aristote : mat\u00e9rielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premi\u00e8res sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et s\u00e9par\u00e9es de lui. Ces derni\u00e8res sont plus proprement principes au sens o\u00f9 elles d\u00e9signent ce d\u2019o\u00f9 le produit provient et \u00e0 quoi il retourne, tout en diff\u00e9rant de lui. La s\u00e9paration renferme le moyen d\u2019en sortir, appelant \u00e0 une transcendance qui reste n\u00e9anmoins sur le m\u00eame plan, celui de la physique. \u00c0 ce degr\u00e9, la s\u00e9paration ne signifie pas la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 ontologique du principe, mais seulement son ext\u00e9riorit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nDe cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu\u2019Aristote m\u00e8ne une \u00e9tude conversive des causes, puisqu\u2019il part de la plus basse (la cause mat\u00e9rielle \u00e9tudi\u00e9e par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication \u00e0 la mati\u00e8re) et termine par la plus \u00e9minente (la cause finale, pr\u00e9occupation ultime du physicien selon le Ph\u00e9don, o\u00f9 Socrate enjoint \u00e0 chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient \u00e0 exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de d\u00e9passer le plan de la physique pour s\u2019\u00e9lever \u00e0 d\u2019autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu\u2019Aristote op\u00e8re reste n\u00e9anmoins dans le plan d\u2019immanence des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique \u00e9vacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne s\u2019\u00e9tend pas sur cette d\u00e9cision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le mod\u00e8le intellectif qui pr\u00e9side \u00e0 l\u2019information selon l\u2019aptitude de ce qui le re\u00e7oit, \u00ab l\u2019essence id\u00e9ale par soi \u00e0 l\u2019image de laquelle est fa\u00e7onn\u00e9 ce qui est ici-bas \u00bb. Quant \u00e0 la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de ce par quoi (\u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice interm\u00e9diaire et imparfaite, au sens o\u00f9 elle meut tout en \u00e9tant elle-m\u00eame mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c\u2019est en raison de sa fonction premi\u00e8re : commentant le Tim\u00e9e, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale d\u00e9signe le principe directement moteur de la mati\u00e8re et de la forme, mais dont le statut est interm\u00e9diaire car son r\u00f4le moteur provient d\u2019un principe sup\u00e9rieur. Par l\u00e0, il d\u00e9signe plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment l\u2019\u00c2me du monde, dont la motricit\u00e9 proc\u00e8de ultimement du D\u00e9miurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n\u2019ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu\u2019elles font intervenir des principes sup\u00e9rieurs aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nEn r\u00e9sum\u00e9, la Physique s\u2019occupe des formes dans la mati\u00e8re, les formes non s\u00e9par\u00e9es, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l\u2019intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la repr\u00e9sentation. Autrement dit, elle vise \u00e0 comprendre les formes dans la mati\u00e8re gr\u00e2ce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adapt\u00e9s, sans faire appel \u00e0 d\u2019autres modes sup\u00e9rieurs de compr\u00e9hension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes n\u00e9cessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d\u2019un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent.\r\n\r\nSur cette base, je voudrais examiner o\u00f9 Simplicius situe la Physique dans l\u2019histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l\u2019histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9 qu\u2019il trouve chez les philosophes pr\u00e9socratiques. Il s\u2019agira d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9 de comprendre comment ces principes s\u2019articulent \u00e0 ceux privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes sup\u00e9rieures, et de l\u2019autre de montrer en quoi les Pr\u00e9socratiques expliquent le d\u00e9veloppement \u00e0 la fois historique et taxinomique du syst\u00e8me physique du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":553,"full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1503,"section_of":1491,"pages":"249-272","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1491,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et syst\u00e9matisation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gavray2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce volume \u00e9tudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l\u2019ancienne Acad\u00e9mie jusqu\u2019au n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la d\u00e9fense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les \u00e9coles rivales, mais aussi, \u00e0 partir de l\u2019\u00e9poque imp\u00e9riale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et r\u00e9ceptions aristot\u00e9liciennes ont jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, pr\u00e9par\u00e9 le tournant inaugur\u00e9 par Plotin : de Th\u00e9ophraste, qui le premier articule la causalit\u00e9 du Premier Moteur et l'h\u00e9ritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, \u00e0 Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inh\u00e9rent aux th\u00e9ories providentialistes des platoniciens imp\u00e9riaux, les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adapt\u00e9es et transform\u00e9es \u00e0 travers les diff\u00e9rents syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Reprenant \u00e0 Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose \u00e0 lui pour d\u00e9fendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il d\u00e9finit comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives, en les ins\u00e9rant dans un syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9rivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. \u00c0 sa suite, les diff\u00e9rents diadoques n\u00e9oplatoniciens placeront la vie au c\u0153ur du monde intelligible, d\u00e9finissant les Formes comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives dot\u00e9es d\u2019une efficience propre\u3000: la puissance de faire advenir des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s d\u00e9riv\u00e9es. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1491,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Monoth\u00e9isme et philosophie ","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 295-326 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius’ works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, on Aristotle’s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus’ work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus’ Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes’ Tekhnê. [conclusion p. 326] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SguvcKAd2fhClm6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"670","_score":null,"_source":{"id":670,"authors_free":[{"id":982,"entry_id":670,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":983,"entry_id":670,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources","main_title":{"title":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources"},"abstract":"Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius\u2019 works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion, on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid\u2019s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus\u2019 work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes\u2019 Tekhn\u00ea. [conclusion p. 326]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SguvcKAd2fhClm6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":670,"section_of":200,"pages":"295-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Simplicius de Cilicie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos |
Pages | 341-394 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet, Richard , Coda, Elisa |
Editor(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philosophe et commentateur néoplatonicien, disciple d’Ammonius à Alexandrie, puis de Damascius à Athènes. La notice a été rédigée par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et œuvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de cohérence, la numérotation des références propre à chacune de ces deux parties a été conservée. Simplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d’années l’objet de vifs débats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n’ont pas encore été publiés, n’ont pu être prises en compte dans la présente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a rédigé une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l’ensemble des problèmes soulevés par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas être publiée sous la forme d’une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu’il était préférable de la faire paraître ailleurs, dans son intégralité et sous son format originel. Son riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la rédaction de la présente notice. L’ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. « Academia Philosophical Studies » 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p. Des astérisques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compléments du présent tome. [introduction p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"899","_score":null,"_source":{"id":899,"authors_free":[{"id":1328,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1981,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1983,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius de Cilicie","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius de Cilicie"},"abstract":"Philosophe et commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien, disciple d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie, puis de Damascius \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nLa notice a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9e par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et \u0153uvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de coh\u00e9rence, la num\u00e9rotation des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences propre \u00e0 chacune de ces deux parties a \u00e9t\u00e9 conserv\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nSimplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d\u2019ann\u00e9es l\u2019objet de vifs d\u00e9bats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n\u2019ont pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9s, n\u2019ont pu \u00eatre prises en compte dans la pr\u00e9sente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l\u2019ensemble des probl\u00e8mes soulev\u00e9s par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas \u00eatre publi\u00e9e sous la forme d\u2019une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de la faire para\u00eetre ailleurs, dans son int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 et sous son format originel.\r\n\r\nSon riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la r\u00e9daction de la pr\u00e9sente notice. L\u2019ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. \u00ab Academia Philosophical Studies \u00bb 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p.\r\n\r\nDes ast\u00e9risques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compl\u00e9ments du pr\u00e9sent tome. [introduction p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":899,"section_of":375,"pages":"341-394","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":375,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus \u00e0 Tyrs\u00e9nos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1994","abstract":"Rebiew by Udo Hartmann, Institut f\u00fcr Altertumswissenschaften, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit\u00e4t Jena: Der von Richard Goulet herausgegebene Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques geh\u00f6rt zweifellos zu den wichtigsten Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Philosophiegeschichte der Antike in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Mit dem siebenten ist nun der letzte der gewichtigen B\u00e4nde dieses Lexikons erschienen, das in umfassender Weise \u00fcber alle Philosophen der Antike informiert. Seit 1981 arbeiteten zahlreiche Wissenschaftler unter Leitung Goulets an diesem Projekt des CNRS, der erste Band des Lexikons mit dem Buchstaben A wurde dann im Jahr 1989 ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Nunmehr liegen die sieben B\u00e4nde und ein Supplementband (von 2003) des Nachschlagewerks vor, das in teilweise sehr umfangreichen Artikeln alle bezeugten Philosophen von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuplatonikern des 6. Jahrhunderts in biographischen Eintr\u00e4gen in alphabetischer Form \u2013 versehen mit Nummern \u2013 vorstellt. Dabei werden nicht nur die bedeutenden griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Philosophen und ihre Sch\u00fcler, sondern alle Personen aufgenommen, die in den Quellen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 charakterisiert werden, an einer Philosophenschule studiert haben oder im Umfeld von Philosophen t\u00e4tig waren. In diesem Dictionnaire finden sich somit auch zahlreiche weitgehend unbekannte Philosophen und Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen (Sophisten, Mediziner, Mathematiker oder Dichter) sowie alle Personen, die auf Grund ihrer Gelehrsamkeit oder Lebenshaltung in literarischen, epigraphischen und papyrologischen Zeugnissen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 bezeichnet werden. Neben dieser Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit der Erfassung antiker Philosophen beeindruckt das Lexikon auch durch seine Gr\u00fcndlichkeit: Die zumeist hervorragenden Eintr\u00e4ge informieren \u00fcber den Lebenslauf und die Werke der Gelehrten, listen aber auch die Forschungsliteratur zu den Philosophen in enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise auf; die Autoren diskutieren zudem die relevanten Forschungsfragen und besprechen auch die ikonographischen Zeugnisse zu den Gelehrten. Dabei werden sowohl die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen als auch die orientalische \u00dcberlieferung bei syrischen, armenischen, georgischen und arabischen Autoren f\u00fcr den Leser erschlossen. F\u00fcr sehr viele Artikel konnten zudem ausgewiesene Fachleute zum jeweiligen Denker als Autoren gewonnen werden. Zahlreiche qualit\u00e4tsvolle Artikel stammen aber auch aus der Feder Goulets (im vorliegenden siebenten Band sind es 83 Artikel), der sich in unz\u00e4hligen Arbeiten um die Erforschung der antiken Philosophiegeschichte verdient gemacht hat. Der Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques ist somit f\u00fcr alle, die sich mit der Philosophie und dem Bildungswesen der Antike besch\u00e4ftigen, zu einem unverzichtbaren Hilfsmittel geworden.\r\n\r\nUmso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erf\u00fcllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualit\u00e4t werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgf\u00e4ltig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abk\u00fcrzungen (S. 9\u201382)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgef\u00fchrt werden (S. 85\u2013451), folgen im zweiten Teil \u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c (S. 453\u20131018), also Supplementeintr\u00e4ge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Erg\u00e4nzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anh\u00e4nge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019\u20131174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen \u201eAnnexe I\u201c bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019\u20131024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen \u201eAnnexe II\u201c (\u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025\u20131174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Sp\u00e4tantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Fr\u00fche Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umf\u00e4ngliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3\r\n\r\nDen Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175\u20131217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und \u00dcbersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschlie\u00dft sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was hei\u00dft es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse f\u00fcr Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219\u20131465) erschlie\u00dfen die Eigennamen (und geben \u2013 wenn vorhanden \u2013 den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken \u00dcbersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen B\u00e4nden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register erm\u00f6glichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk.\r\n\r\nIm ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Sch\u00fcler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beitr\u00e4ge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem sp\u00e4tantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karf\u00edkov\u00e1, V 14, S. 153\u2013166), zu dem ausf\u00fchrlich die Thesen \u00fcber m\u00f6gliche Einfl\u00fcsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould \/ Goulet, X 15, S. 211\u2013219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194\u2013208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-Andr\u00e9 Dorion \/ J\u00f6rn Lang, X 19, S. 227\u2013290), in dessen Eintrag auch der \u201aAlte Oligarch\u2018 kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346\u2013363) sowie dem Begr\u00fcnder der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat \/ Lang, Z 20, S. 364\u2013396). Dan Dana stellt das legend\u00e4re Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Sch\u00fcler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317\u2013322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel er\u00f6rtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94\u2013133), des Dichters Vergil (R\u00e9gine Chambert, V 10, S. 136\u2013147), dessen Bildungsweg ausf\u00fchrlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301\u2013308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447\u2013450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfa\u00dft haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erw\u00e4hnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Caz\u00e9, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem sp\u00e4ten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Sch\u00fcler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schlie\u00dflich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10\r\n\r\nIm Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausf\u00fchrlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681\u2013884): Detailliert er\u00f6rtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen \u00fcber Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes \u00fcber die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras\u2019 Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschlie\u00dft zudem in geradezu enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681\u2013850).11 Erg\u00e4nzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851\u2013860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen \u00dcberlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860\u2013884). Etwas k\u00fcnstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erw\u00e4hnte \u201eAnnexe II\u201c, l\u00e4\u00dft sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras und \u00fcber die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausf\u00fchrliche Beitr\u00e4ge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485\u2013513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534\u2013571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637\u2013667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904\u2013933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden \u00fcbersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft blo\u00dfe Namen bleiben, halblegend\u00e4re Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und \u201aLehrerin\u2018 des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963\u2013965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Erg\u00e4nzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607\u2013608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet \/ V\u00e9ronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584\u2013588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4\u20135; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet erg\u00e4nzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erw\u00e4hnte \u201aPhilosoph\u2018 Hierios, der im fr\u00fchen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller t\u00e4tige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln.\r\n\r\nAuch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Erg\u00e4nzungen zu den bislang erschienenen B\u00e4nden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umf\u00e4ngliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beitr\u00e4ge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur f\u00fcr ihre sorgf\u00e4ltige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollst\u00e4ndig erschlie\u00dft.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":375,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 341-357 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"935","_score":null,"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aCdD22AdndA4ijA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre |
Pages | 173-194 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher |
Translator(s) |
This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"963","_score":null,"_source":{"id":963,"authors_free":[{"id":1445,"entry_id":963,"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}},{"id":1446,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1447,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"},"abstract":"This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative \u201ccorpus\u201d of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a \u201cnatural by-product\u201d of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":963,"section_of":292,"pages":"173-194","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":292,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kraus\/Stray2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico |
Pages | 171-188 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Boriello, Maria , Vitale, Angelo Maria |
Translator(s) |
È bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui è la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all’essere, l’uno che non è. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti. Il Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l’aporia dell’uni-molteplicità sia nell’ambito del sensibile che in quello dell’intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in sé le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest’ultimo. Se Aristotele ha risolto l’aporia dell’uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l’unità della sostanza (la quale garantisce l’unità dell’intero in virtù del suo sussistere per sé) e la molteplicità degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per sé), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l’aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all’aporia dell’uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si è visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati. Anche a proposito di quest’ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando è possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che è conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che è solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d’ogni tempo, l’unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187–188] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":403,"authors_free":[{"id":538,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":539,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":248,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boriello, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Boriello","norm_person":{"id":248,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Boriello","full_name":"Boriello, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1148023100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2079,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","free_first_name":"Angelo Maria","free_last_name":"Vitale","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Angelo Maria","last_name":"Vitale","full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071335952","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio"},"abstract":"\u00c8 bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui \u00e8 la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all\u2019essere, l\u2019uno che non \u00e8. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti.\r\n\r\nIl Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uni-molteplicit\u00e0 sia nell\u2019ambito del sensibile che in quello dell\u2019intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in s\u00e9 le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest\u2019ultimo.\r\n\r\nSe Aristotele ha risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l\u2019unit\u00e0 della sostanza (la quale garantisce l\u2019unit\u00e0 dell\u2019intero in virt\u00f9 del suo sussistere per s\u00e9) e la molteplicit\u00e0 degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per s\u00e9), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l\u2019aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si \u00e8 visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati.\r\n\r\nAnche a proposito di quest\u2019ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando \u00e8 possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che \u00e8 conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che \u00e8 solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d\u2019ogni tempo, l\u2019unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187\u2013188]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":248,"full_name":"Boriello, Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":249,"full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":403,"section_of":343,"pages":"171-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":343,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Vitale2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":343,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Citt\u00e0 Nuova","series":"Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 61-88 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description ‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re- Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings, by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity |
Pages | 421-487 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Panayiotis Tzamalikos |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle’s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras’ propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous. In this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius’ reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle’s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master’s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle’s allegations. We have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras’ principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius’ explanation, branding it as “Neoplatonic.” It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.¹ In this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras’ own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term “incorporeal,” even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term “incorporeal” a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning “incorporeal.” God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.² In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180–125 AD) boldly asserted that “God is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body”;³ for “nothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.”⁴ So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic. What is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term “incorporeal” (or indeed the term “principle”) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras’ principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be “logical to the bitter end.”⁵ It is now time for us to see Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1597","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1597,"authors_free":[{"id":2798,"entry_id":1597,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Panayiotis Tzamalikos","free_first_name":"Panayiotis","free_last_name":"Tzamalikos","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"},"abstract":"The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle\u2019s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras\u2019 propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius\u2019 reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master\u2019s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle\u2019s allegations.\r\n\r\nWe have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras\u2019 principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius\u2019 explanation, branding it as \u201cNeoplatonic.\u201d It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.\u00b9\r\n\r\nIn this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras\u2019 own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term \u201cincorporeal,\u201d even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning \u201cincorporeal.\u201d God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.\u00b2 In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180\u2013125 AD) boldly asserted that \u201cGod is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body\u201d;\u00b3 for \u201cnothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.\u201d\u2074 So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic.\r\n\r\nWhat is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d (or indeed the term \u201cprinciple\u201d) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras\u2019 principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be \u201clogical to the bitter end.\u201d\u2075\r\n\r\nIt is now time for us to see Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1597,"section_of":1598,"pages":"421-487","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1598,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tzamalikos2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius\u2019 implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras\u2019 philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle\u2019s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1598,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte","volume":"128","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy.\r\n\r\nSimplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d\r\n\r\nPhiloponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 393-412 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work. To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1418,"authors_free":[{"id":2219,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2221,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"},"abstract":"Philoponus\u2019 denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.\r\n\r\nTo conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius\u2019 commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus\u2019 edition of Ammonius\u2019 lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius\u2019 lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1418,"section_of":1419,"pages":"393-412","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/thdAvlIvWl4EdKB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 531–540 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 541-564 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Roueché, Mossman |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called ‘a very shadowy figure’. From the time of Hermann Usener’s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an ‘ecumenical teacher’ in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to ‘Stephanus’ in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this‘evidence’ and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1527","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1527,"authors_free":[{"id":2659,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rouech\u00e9, Mossman","free_first_name":"Mossman","free_last_name":"Rouech\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2660,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher","main_title":{"title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher"},"abstract":"The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called \u2018a very shadowy figure\u2019. From the time of Hermann Usener\u2019s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an \u2018ecumenical teacher\u2019 in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to \u2018Stephanus\u2019 in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this\u2018evidence\u2019 and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1527,"section_of":1419,"pages":"541-564","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 367-392 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus’ work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus’ changing treatment of Aristotle’s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius’ Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken’s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating. The second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus’ seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus’ commentarial (skholastikai) notes (aposêmeiôseis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus’ name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idiôn) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry’s Introduction (Isagôgê), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle’s logic. All this could have several important implications. First, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus’ own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius’ seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius’ lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius’ lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving. However, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli’s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius’ seminars and Philoponus’ (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus’ editions of Ammonius’ lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry’s Isagôgê, and on Aristotle’s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics. So far, Golitsis’ conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1531","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1531,"authors_free":[{"id":2667,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2668,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius","main_title":{"title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"},"abstract":"There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus\u2019 work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus\u2019 changing treatment of Aristotle\u2019s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius\u2019 Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken\u2019s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating.\r\n\r\nThe second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus\u2019 seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus\u2019 commentarial (skholastikai) notes (apos\u00eamei\u00f4seis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus\u2019 name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idi\u00f4n) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry\u2019s Introduction (Isag\u00f4g\u00ea), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle\u2019s logic. All this could have several important implications.\r\n\r\nFirst, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus\u2019 own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius\u2019 seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius\u2019 lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving.\r\n\r\nHowever, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli\u2019s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius\u2019 seminars and Philoponus\u2019 (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus\u2019 editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry\u2019s Isag\u00f4g\u00ea, and on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics.\r\n\r\nSo far, Golitsis\u2019 conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1531,"section_of":1419,"pages":"367-392","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 353-366 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | van den Berg, Robbert Maarten |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Ammonius, the son of Hermeias († between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412–485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he ‘owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.’ How much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus’ course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius’ originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle’s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as ‘names’ in this paper. One of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus’ lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus’ text at one point on the basis of Ammonius’ commentary. In this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius’ concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. §10, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat. Ammonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle’s idea of what a name is differs from Plato’s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous œuvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius’ interpretation of Cratylus’ position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position. Once we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius’ commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1532","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1532,"authors_free":[{"id":2669,"entry_id":1532,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van den Berg, Robbert Maarten ","free_first_name":"Robbert Maarten ","free_last_name":"van den Berg","norm_person":null},{"id":2670,"entry_id":1532,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione","main_title":{"title":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione"},"abstract":"Ammonius, the son of Hermeias (\u2020 between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412\u2013485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he \u2018owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.\u2019\r\n\r\nHow much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus\u2019 course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius\u2019 originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle\u2019s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as \u2018names\u2019 in this paper.\r\n\r\nOne of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus\u2019 lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus\u2019 text at one point on the basis of Ammonius\u2019 commentary.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius\u2019 concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. \u00a710, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat.\r\n\r\nAmmonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle\u2019s idea of what a name is differs from Plato\u2019s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous \u0153uvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius\u2019 interpretation of Cratylus\u2019 position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position.\r\n\r\nOnce we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius\u2019 commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1532,"section_of":1419,"pages":"353-366","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 413-436 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | de Haas, Frans A. J. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella’s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle’s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established. Zabarella’s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his ‘true’ interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella’s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella’s own theory of mixture still await further investigation. To conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle’s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors’ commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella’s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle’s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus. [conclusion p. 434-435] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1528","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1528,"authors_free":[{"id":2661,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2662,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality","main_title":{"title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"},"abstract":"In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella\u2019s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle\u2019s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established.\r\n\r\nZabarella\u2019s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his \u2018true\u2019 interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella\u2019s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella\u2019s own theory of mixture still await further investigation.\r\n\r\nTo conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors\u2019 commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella\u2019s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle\u2019s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus.\r\n[conclusion p. 434-435]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1528,"section_of":1419,"pages":"413-436","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 231-262 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 313-326 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dillon, John |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1533","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1533,"authors_free":[{"id":2671,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2672,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"It will be seen that it is Iamblichus\u2019 purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus\u2019 distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1533,"section_of":1419,"pages":"313-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 291-312 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular. Porphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle’s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato’s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato’s Creator God. This was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle’s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius’ harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus’ teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought. Philoponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius’ anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds. [conclusion p. 312] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1534,"authors_free":[{"id":2673,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null},{"id":2674,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle\u2019s rejection of Plato\u2019s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular.\r\n\r\nPorphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle\u2019s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato\u2019s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato\u2019s Creator God.\r\n\r\nThis was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle\u2019s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius\u2019 harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus\u2019 teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius\u2019 anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds.\r\n[conclusion p. 312]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1534,"section_of":1419,"pages":"291-312","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 103-124 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle’s text. Boethus’ fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition—Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius—a coherent and unitary doctrine. His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories. For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance. [introduction p. 103-104] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1536,"authors_free":[{"id":2679,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2680,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology","main_title":{"title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"},"abstract":"Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle\u2019s text. Boethus\u2019 fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition\u2014Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius\u2014a coherent and unitary doctrine.\r\n\r\nHis doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos\u2019 nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.\r\n\r\nFor sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.\r\n[introduction p. 103-104]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYH889DSksf6EXe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1536,"section_of":1419,"pages":"103-124","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 81-102 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hatzimichali, Myrto |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato’s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle’s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus’ Pinakes. A scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new ‘editions’ and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1537","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1537,"authors_free":[{"id":2681,"entry_id":1537,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzimichali, Myrto","free_first_name":"Myrto","free_last_name":"Hatzimichali","norm_person":null},{"id":2682,"entry_id":1537,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon","main_title":{"title":"The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon"},"abstract":"If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato\u2019s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle\u2019s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus\u2019 Pinakes.\r\n\r\nA scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new \u2018editions\u2019 and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1537,"section_of":1419,"pages":"81-102","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 171-185 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wilberding, James |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen’s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us "hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form." What is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses: (i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed. (ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous. (iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality. (iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses. It is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle’s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen’s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed. What is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect. When this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male’s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One’s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"913","_score":null,"_source":{"id":913,"authors_free":[{"id":1346,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1347,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1348,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life"},"abstract":"In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen\u2019s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us \"hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form.\"\r\n\r\nWhat is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses:\r\n\r\n(i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed.\r\n\r\n(ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous.\r\n\r\n(iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality.\r\n\r\n(iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses.\r\n\r\nIt is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle\u2019s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen\u2019s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed.\r\n\r\nWhat is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect.\r\n\r\nWhen this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male\u2019s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One\u2019s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":913,"section_of":155,"pages":"171-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
Pages | 293-310 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Translator(s) |
Une qualité indéniable des Commentaires de Simplicius réside dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Présocratiques, des Platoniciens et des Péripatéticiens, mais surtout d’Aristote et de Platon. C’est notamment à travers cet usage des références que l’on peut mesurer l’originalité (ou la particularité) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses thèses s’élaborent au fil d’une exégèse qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synthèse de la culture païenne. Dès lors, c’est dans une certaine pratique de l’intertextualité que se joue sa contribution à l’histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interprétation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition. Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ? Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","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}},{"id":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2211,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2212,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden |
Pages | 67-73 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. |
Editor(s) | Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich |
Translator(s) |
The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius’ reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1482,"authors_free":[{"id":2564,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2567,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":549,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Holmes, Brooke","free_first_name":"Brooke","free_last_name":"Holmes","norm_person":{"id":549,"first_name":"Brooke","last_name":"Holmes","full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017511543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2568,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":550,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","free_first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","free_last_name":"Fischer","norm_person":{"id":550,"first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","last_name":"Fischer","full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13237076X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question"},"abstract":"The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius\u2019 reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":549,"full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":550,"full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1482,"section_of":1483,"pages":"67-73","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1483,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Holmes-Fisher_2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gq9gFanQtC9OclL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1483,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"338","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 111-128 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
One of Simplicius’ contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of ‘principle,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘element’ in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21–20.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the ‘elements’ requires further attention is clear from Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles. My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"912","_score":null,"_source":{"id":912,"authors_free":[{"id":1343,"entry_id":912,"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}},{"id":2089,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2090,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"},"abstract":"One of Simplicius\u2019 contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of \u2018principle,\u2019 \u2018cause,\u2019 and \u2018element\u2019 in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21\u201320.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the \u2018elements\u2019 requires further attention is clear from Simplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius\u2019 technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius\u2019 own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle\u2019s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle\u2019s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle\u2019s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius\u2019 own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered\u2014the different \u2018sources,\u2019 so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/g1SyUqDyUcBATre","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":912,"section_of":155,"pages":"111-128","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Neoplatonic Socrates |
Pages | 127-142 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lawrence, Marilynn |
Editor(s) | Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold |
Translator(s) |
This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hnBeShzJI9WChDr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hnBeShzJI9WChDr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti |
Pages | 537-549 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana , Iozzia, Daniele |
Translator(s) |
L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine è duplice: da un lato, cercherò di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione è considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall’altro lato, mi adopererò per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio. Preciso subito che non ricercherò di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrerò piuttosto sull’interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica. La critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 è nota per la sua problematicità, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato è che indagare se l’essere è uno e immobile non è indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo è se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico. In particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche più recenti, cioè quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe—ed è così interpretata dalla quasi totalità dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica—che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Così, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura. Lungi dall’essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura. Quest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, è stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averroè sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si può mostrare la falsità a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l’esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non è considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione è precisamente di competenza del geometra. Di qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un’analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato—i quali assumono che l’essere è uno e immobile—e Antifonte dall’altro lato—il quale cercò di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l’iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari—procedura che per Aristotele non è accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra. Sia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero sì indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova già in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perché Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perché alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalità della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura. [introduction p. 537-539] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1162","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1162,"authors_free":[{"id":1740,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2076,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2077,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":247,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Iozzia, Daniele","free_first_name":"Daniele ","free_last_name":"Iozzia","norm_person":{"id":247,"first_name":"Daniele ","last_name":"Iozzia","full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036757870","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19","main_title":{"title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19"},"abstract":"L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine \u00e8 duplice: da un lato, cercher\u00f2 di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione \u00e8 considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall\u2019altro lato, mi adoperer\u00f2 per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio.\r\nPreciso subito che non ricercher\u00f2 di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrer\u00f2 piuttosto sull\u2019interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica.\r\nLa critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 \u00e8 nota per la sua problematicit\u00e0, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato \u00e8 che indagare se l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile non \u00e8 indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo \u00e8 se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico.\r\nIn particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche pi\u00f9 recenti, cio\u00e8 quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe\u2014ed \u00e8 cos\u00ec interpretata dalla quasi totalit\u00e0 dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica\u2014che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Cos\u00ec, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura.\r\nLungi dall\u2019essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura.\r\nQuest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, \u00e8 stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averro\u00e8 sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si pu\u00f2 mostrare la falsit\u00e0 a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l\u2019esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non \u00e8 considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione \u00e8 precisamente di competenza del geometra.\r\nDi qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un\u2019analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato\u2014i quali assumono che l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile\u2014e Antifonte dall\u2019altro lato\u2014il quale cerc\u00f2 di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l\u2019iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari\u2014procedura che per Aristotele non \u00e8 accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra.\r\nSia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero s\u00ec indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova gi\u00e0 in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perch\u00e9 Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perch\u00e9 alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalit\u00e0 della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura.\r\n[introduction p. 537-539]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":247,"full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1162,"section_of":323,"pages":"537-549","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":323,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0397. Bellezza e virt\u00f9. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cardullo2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iYDFyV0tpKo9lmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":323,"pubplace":"Acireale - Rom","publisher":"Bonanno","series":"Analecta humanitatis. Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell'Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Catania diretta da Santo Di Nuovo","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Iamblichus on Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism |
Pages | 280-292 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Finamore, John F. |
Editor(s) | Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla |
Translator(s) |
Central to lamblichus’ philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad dles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. H um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible W orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re ascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central character in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to its eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus’ philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later Neoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by John Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed light on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the author o f the com m entary to A ristotle’s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 and by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus’ unique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"807","_score":null,"_source":{"id":807,"authors_free":[{"id":1194,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2103,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2104,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus on Soul","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus on Soul"},"abstract":"Central to lamblichus\u2019 philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad\u00ad\r\ndles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. \r\nH um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible \r\nW orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re\u00ad\r\nascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central \r\ncharacter in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to \r\nits eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus\u2019 philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later \r\nNeoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by \r\nJohn Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed \r\nlight on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the \r\nauthor o f the com m entary to A ristotle\u2019s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 \r\nand by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus\u2019 \r\nunique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":807,"section_of":345,"pages":"280-292","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique |
Pages | 240-264 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vallat, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"828","_score":null,"_source":{"id":828,"authors_free":[{"id":1229,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1230,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":828,"section_of":74,"pages":"240-264","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique |
Pages | 102-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vallat, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"829","_score":null,"_source":{"id":829,"authors_free":[{"id":1231,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1232,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":829,"section_of":74,"pages":"102-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism |
Pages | 323-338 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla |
Translator(s) |
Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive. Moreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle’s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia: "Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight—so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself." (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn) The distinction between perception and perception of perception—perceptual consciousness—is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed. Consequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible’s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing. On this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception. How shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to. In the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved. On the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"880","_score":null,"_source":{"id":880,"authors_free":[{"id":1291,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1292,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1293,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators","main_title":{"title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators"},"abstract":"Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive.\r\n\r\nMoreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle\u2019s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia:\r\n\r\n\"Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight\u2014so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself.\" (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn)\r\n\r\nThe distinction between perception and perception of perception\u2014perceptual consciousness\u2014is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed.\r\n\r\nConsequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible\u2019s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing.\r\n\r\nOn this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception.\r\n\r\nHow shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to.\r\n\r\nIn the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved.\r\n\r\nOn the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":880,"section_of":345,"pages":"323-338","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Φάος et τόπος. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chaldaïques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie |
Pages | 101-152 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Lecerf, Adrien , Saudelli, Lucia , Seng, Helmut |
Translator(s) |
La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire à la Physique d’Aristote, qui est consacrée à la notion de « lieu » et qui prend la suite de l’explication continue du texte même d’Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement désignée par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parallèlement l’explication du traité aristotélicien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie néoplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines néoplatoniciennes de l’espace et du temps des exposés d’importance majeure. Le Corollarium de loco présente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire néoplatonicienne des doctrines du « lieu », d’Aristote à Damascius (et Simplicius lui-même), qui nous a conservé de précieux fragments de deux traités perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties très nettement distinguées. Une section dialectique, tout d’abord, dans laquelle Simplicius mène un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristotélicien (Physique et De caelo), en répondant au traitement par Alexandre d’Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette première partie les doctrines antérieures à celle de Damascius (d’Aristote à Syrianus) et s’attache à comprendre les raisons de leur échec. Vient ensuite une pars construens, ou plutôt un exposé systématique consacré à la doctrine véridique du « lieu », celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et précise. Dans la première partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre près de 13 pages (de l’édition Diels), soit près du tiers de l’ensemble de la digression, à l’examen critique des doctrines du « lieu » qui se sont intéressées à un type de définition rejeté (et négligé) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un « espace » ou une « étendue ». La discussion de ces doctrines (représentées sous des formes diverses par Démocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particulièrement importante car, conformément à une méthode d’origine aristotélicienne, l’examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une réfutation, mais vise aussi à extraire la part de vérité contenue dans les opinions examinées. La lecture d’ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a prêté un intérêt tout particulier aux définitions du « lieu » comme « étendue » (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu’elles préfiguraient en quelque sorte – de façon certes maladroite et fautive – la doctrine de son maître Damascius. On passe alors de la considération de l’« étendue » à celle de la « distension » néoplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu’il en vient à l’exposé complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumière le fait qu’il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le « lieu » et la « distension », qui se réalise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une détermination « inétendue », qui « œuvre à la perfection des corps », et plus précisément il est la « mesure rassemblante » d’une modalité particulière de la « distension », désignée par le terme de « disposition » : disposition des parties d’une totalité à l’intérieur de cette totalité ou encore position d’un corps à l’intérieur d’un autre corps envisagé comme totalité plus englobante. Malgré l’autorité dont Proclus est revêtu aux yeux de tous les néoplatoniciens de la fin de l’Antiquité, et malgré le respect profond que Simplicius éprouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de réfuter que le lieu soit un corps, fût-ce un corps immatériel, afin que le lieu puisse ultérieurement être défini comme une mesure inétendue et incorporelle de la « distension » des corps (Damascius). Dans le traité perdu dont des passages centraux sont conservés par Simplicius, Proclus démontre sa doctrine par la conjonction d’une démarche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours à deux confirmations offertes par des autorités sacrées : la Raison rencontre la Révélation. La première démarche part de prémisses aristotéliciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l’hypothèse selon laquelle le « lieu » serait une « étendue », et elle démontre que c’est une « étendue » corporelle, comprise comme sphère de lumière pure coïncidant avec la sphère cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immatériel. La seconde démarche consiste à poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les données du mythe d’Er dans la République, et avec le sens attribué à un vers chaldaïque qui énonce de façon mystérieuse que l’Âme du Monde « anime de fond en comble lumière, feu, éther, mondes ». Le lieu-lumière démontré par la procédure rationnelle est enseigné par le sens profond (et caché) que l’on décèle dans le mythe (c’est la colonne de lumière de République X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole même des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la République identifie parallèlement la lumière de République X au lieu du Ciel, réaffirme son identité avec la lumière chaldaïque, et fait référence à ce traité en offrant une doctrine tout à fait concordante. L’autorité des Oracles Chaldaïques est pour les néoplatoniciens de cette époque la source ultime de la Vérité, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas à pas, une longue discussion exégétique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l’intérêt porté aux Oracles Chaldaïques par Simplicius, au sein même d’un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique. L’objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction commentée de l’ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de façon à montrer l’osmose entre la démarche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond à une recherche de Physique, et l’opération herméneutique appliquée à une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d’un raisonnement et une expérience de foi puisqu’elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera précédée de quelques remarques préliminaires sur l’Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible à la fois dans l’édition de Diels et dans l’édition mise en ligne déjà mentionnée (éd. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"940","_score":null,"_source":{"id":940,"authors_free":[{"id":1395,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1396,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":197,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","free_first_name":"Adrien","free_last_name":"Lecerf","norm_person":{"id":197,"first_name":"Adrien","last_name":"Lecerf","full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068302194","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1397,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1398,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":462,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Seng, Helmut","free_first_name":"Helmut","free_last_name":"Seng","norm_person":{"id":462,"first_name":"Helmut","last_name":"Seng","full_name":"Seng, Helmut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114500509","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)","main_title":{"title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"},"abstract":"La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote, qui est consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 la notion de \u00ab lieu \u00bb et qui prend la suite de l\u2019explication continue du texte m\u00eame d\u2019Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parall\u00e8lement l\u2019explication du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de l\u2019espace et du temps des expos\u00e9s d\u2019importance majeure.\r\n\r\nLe Corollarium de loco pr\u00e9sente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Damascius (et Simplicius lui-m\u00eame), qui nous a conserv\u00e9 de pr\u00e9cieux fragments de deux trait\u00e9s perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties tr\u00e8s nettement distingu\u00e9es. Une section dialectique, tout d\u2019abord, dans laquelle Simplicius m\u00e8ne un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristot\u00e9licien (Physique et De caelo), en r\u00e9pondant au traitement par Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette premi\u00e8re partie les doctrines ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 celle de Damascius (d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Syrianus) et s\u2019attache \u00e0 comprendre les raisons de leur \u00e9chec.\r\n\r\nVient ensuite une pars construens, ou plut\u00f4t un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la doctrine v\u00e9ridique du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et pr\u00e9cise. Dans la premi\u00e8re partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre pr\u00e8s de 13 pages (de l\u2019\u00e9dition Diels), soit pr\u00e8s du tiers de l\u2019ensemble de la digression, \u00e0 l\u2019examen critique des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb qui se sont int\u00e9ress\u00e9es \u00e0 un type de d\u00e9finition rejet\u00e9 (et n\u00e9glig\u00e9) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un \u00ab espace \u00bb ou une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb. La discussion de ces doctrines (repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es sous des formes diverses par D\u00e9mocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particuli\u00e8rement importante car, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 une m\u00e9thode d\u2019origine aristot\u00e9licienne, l\u2019examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une r\u00e9futation, mais vise aussi \u00e0 extraire la part de v\u00e9rit\u00e9 contenue dans les opinions examin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa lecture d\u2019ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a pr\u00eat\u00e9 un int\u00e9r\u00eat tout particulier aux d\u00e9finitions du \u00ab lieu \u00bb comme \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu\u2019elles pr\u00e9figuraient en quelque sorte \u2013 de fa\u00e7on certes maladroite et fautive \u2013 la doctrine de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. On passe alors de la consid\u00e9ration de l\u2019\u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb \u00e0 celle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu\u2019il en vient \u00e0 l\u2019expos\u00e9 complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumi\u00e8re le fait qu\u2019il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le \u00ab lieu \u00bb et la \u00ab distension \u00bb, qui se r\u00e9alise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une d\u00e9termination \u00ab in\u00e9tendue \u00bb, qui \u00ab \u0153uvre \u00e0 la perfection des corps \u00bb, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment il est la \u00ab mesure rassemblante \u00bb d\u2019une modalit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re de la \u00ab distension \u00bb, d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le terme de \u00ab disposition \u00bb : disposition des parties d\u2019une totalit\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de cette totalit\u00e9 ou encore position d\u2019un corps \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un autre corps envisag\u00e9 comme totalit\u00e9 plus englobante.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 dont Proclus est rev\u00eatu aux yeux de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, et malgr\u00e9 le respect profond que Simplicius \u00e9prouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de r\u00e9futer que le lieu soit un corps, f\u00fbt-ce un corps immat\u00e9riel, afin que le lieu puisse ult\u00e9rieurement \u00eatre d\u00e9fini comme une mesure in\u00e9tendue et incorporelle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb des corps (Damascius). Dans le trait\u00e9 perdu dont des passages centraux sont conserv\u00e9s par Simplicius, Proclus d\u00e9montre sa doctrine par la conjonction d\u2019une d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours \u00e0 deux confirmations offertes par des autorit\u00e9s sacr\u00e9es : la Raison rencontre la R\u00e9v\u00e9lation.\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re d\u00e9marche part de pr\u00e9misses aristot\u00e9liciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle le \u00ab lieu \u00bb serait une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb, et elle d\u00e9montre que c\u2019est une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb corporelle, comprise comme sph\u00e8re de lumi\u00e8re pure co\u00efncidant avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immat\u00e9riel. La seconde d\u00e9marche consiste \u00e0 poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les donn\u00e9es du mythe d\u2019Er dans la R\u00e9publique, et avec le sens attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 un vers chalda\u00efque qui \u00e9nonce de fa\u00e7on myst\u00e9rieuse que l\u2019\u00c2me du Monde \u00ab anime de fond en comble lumi\u00e8re, feu, \u00e9ther, mondes \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLe lieu-lumi\u00e8re d\u00e9montr\u00e9 par la proc\u00e9dure rationnelle est enseign\u00e9 par le sens profond (et cach\u00e9) que l\u2019on d\u00e9c\u00e8le dans le mythe (c\u2019est la colonne de lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole m\u00eame des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la R\u00e9publique identifie parall\u00e8lement la lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X au lieu du Ciel, r\u00e9affirme son identit\u00e9 avec la lumi\u00e8re chalda\u00efque, et fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 ce trait\u00e9 en offrant une doctrine tout \u00e0 fait concordante.\r\n\r\nL\u2019autorit\u00e9 des Oracles Chalda\u00efques est pour les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de cette \u00e9poque la source ultime de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas \u00e0 pas, une longue discussion ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat port\u00e9 aux Oracles Chalda\u00efques par Simplicius, au sein m\u00eame d\u2019un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique.\r\n\r\nL\u2019objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction comment\u00e9e de l\u2019ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 montrer l\u2019osmose entre la d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond \u00e0 une recherche de Physique, et l\u2019op\u00e9ration herm\u00e9neutique appliqu\u00e9e \u00e0 une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d\u2019un raisonnement et une exp\u00e9rience de foi puisqu\u2019elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e de quelques remarques pr\u00e9liminaires sur l\u2019Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible \u00e0 la fois dans l\u2019\u00e9dition de Diels et dans l\u2019\u00e9dition mise en ligne d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9e (\u00e9d. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":197,"full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":462,"full_name":"Seng, Helmut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":940,"section_of":357,"pages":"101-152","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":357,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lecerf2014b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"Les Oracles chalda\u00efques posent nombre de probl\u00e8mes \u00e0 l\u02bchistorien de la pens\u00e9e antique, tant sur le plan de la forme que sur celui du fond.\r\n\r\nTexte datant du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, en vers principalement hexam\u00e9triques, dont nous ne poss\u00e9dons que des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages, conserv\u00e9s par des auteurs post\u00e9rieurs, en langue grecque et latine, les extraits \u00e0 notre disposition rec\u00e8lent une philosophie, d\u02bcinspiration platonicienne, dont les th\u00e8mes principaux sont la triade divine form\u00e9e de P\u00e8re, Puissance et Intellect, les \u00eatres interm\u00e9diaires, l\u02bc\u00e2me et ses vicissitudes, les divers mondes.\r\n\r\nLes questions que nous souhaitons traiter, en publiant ces travaux de recherche, sont le rattachement des Oracles au mouvement philosophique du \u00ab m\u00e9dioplatonisme \u00bb et les rapports entre th\u00e9ologie chalda\u00efque et th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne. Nous \u00e9tudions \u00e9galement la fortune et l\u02bcinfortune des vers chalda\u00efques dans l\u02bcAntiquit\u00e9 tardive et jusqu\u02bcau XVIIe si\u00e8cle, en d\u00e9gageant d\u02bcautre part les perspectives d\u02bcune nouvelle \u00e9dition des Oracles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":357,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Winter","series":"Bibliotheca Chaldaica","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 329-350 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco |
Translator(s) |
The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of "impetus" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":427,"authors_free":[{"id":573,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":574,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","norm_person":{"id":90,"first_name":"Pierre ","last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1085171485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":576,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"},"abstract":"The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of \"impetus\" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":427,"section_of":329,"pages":"329-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":329,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Destr\u00e9e2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche |
Pages | 277-363 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia |
Translator(s) |
En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen Âge latin, sur l’astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d’Aristote, et plus généralement sur la postérité syriaque et arabe de la pensée aristotélicienne, cette étude générale portera sur un texte grec de l’Antiquité tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo. Son propos est de considérer la nature de la religion philosophique néoplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d’en proposer une interprétation d’ensemble, en nouant les fils d’une recherche engagée dans trois publications antérieures : un article ancien consacré à la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et à la question de la structure physique de la substance céleste, et deux autres études, plus récentes, consacrées à la triade chaldaïque Amour - Vérité - Foi (Érōs, Alêtheia, Pistis), qui a été formalisée par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la prière, et sur laquelle les commentaires à la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de précieux témoignages. Cette triade de puissances anagogiques est à l’œuvre notamment dans cet « hymne » au Démiurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la présente enquête, consacrée à une interprétation globale de l’œuvre de Simplicius, on complétera le dossier déjà rassemblé au sujet de la triade chaldaïque, en produisant notamment deux textes supplémentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l’élaboration d’une pistis philosophique, à l’extrême fin de l’Antiquité, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse païenne contre l’« athéisme » chrétien. La traduction commentée d’un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d’étudier de près les présupposés spécifiquement néoplatoniciens qui guident l’exégète dans sa lecture d’Aristote, et les enjeux théologiques qui dominent son interprétation du De Caelo et préparent, dans l’expérience de la Foi, une union de « sympathie » avec la substance même du Ciel et avec le Démiurge. L’étude des œuvres philosophiques de l’Antiquité tardive, principalement des textes néoplatoniciens grecs, favorisée par un nombre impressionnant d’éditions critiques d’importance majeure, a connu ces dernières décennies un profond renouvellement herméneutique, grâce à une compréhension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-mêmes, mais aussi à une attention accrue portée aux dimensions rhétoriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont inséparables du très complexe système philosophique en devenir, forgé pendant près de quatre siècles, de Porphyre jusqu’aux derniers professeurs d’Alexandrie. L’étude du néoplatonisme ne peut être séparée de l’histoire générale, politique et religieuse, de l’Antiquité tardive. La théologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement liées, soit que la théologie apparaisse comme une « partie » de la philosophie, soit que l’ensemble du système philosophique se désigne lui-même comme une théologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitulés Peri tôn kata Platōna Theologias (Théologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologikê (Éléments de théologie), qui présentent selon des modes d’exposition très différents le déploiement de l’ensemble du système. La théologie savante s’enrichit et s’accompagne d’autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie même des philosophes néoplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels théurgiques, formes diverses de la piété à l’égard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la polémique anti-chrétienne. L’interprétation des textes eux-mêmes a été renouvelée par une attention accrue portée aux genres littéraires philosophiques et à la dimension pragmatique des œuvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d’une réflexion sur les « jeux de langage » de Wittgenstein, ont contribué à renouveler l’interprétation des commentaires néoplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisagés comme des œuvres littéraires à part entière, avec leur régime spécifique de systématicité, leurs règles, leurs codes, leurs finalités pragmatiques propres. Au-delà de l’érudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caractérise le discours philosophique – nourri à la fois de la tradition péripatéticienne et des recherches des exégètes néoplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre – ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de méditation spirituelle à finalité anagogique, que l’auteur pratique à la fois pour lui-même et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils relèvent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des éléments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":500,"authors_free":[{"id":690,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":691,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":692,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":213,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","free_first_name":"Cecilia","free_last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","norm_person":{"id":213,"first_name":"Cecilia","last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047649543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen \u00c2ge latin, sur l\u2019astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote, et plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement sur la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 syriaque et arabe de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne, cette \u00e9tude g\u00e9n\u00e9rale portera sur un texte grec de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo.\r\n\r\nSon propos est de consid\u00e9rer la nature de la religion philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d\u2019en proposer une interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019ensemble, en nouant les fils d\u2019une recherche engag\u00e9e dans trois publications ant\u00e9rieures : un article ancien consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et \u00e0 la question de la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste, et deux autres \u00e9tudes, plus r\u00e9centes, consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 la triade chalda\u00efque Amour - V\u00e9rit\u00e9 - Foi (\u00c9r\u014ds, Al\u00eatheia, Pistis), qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 formalis\u00e9e par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la pri\u00e8re, et sur laquelle les commentaires \u00e0 la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de pr\u00e9cieux t\u00e9moignages.\r\n\r\nCette triade de puissances anagogiques est \u00e0 l\u2019\u0153uvre notamment dans cet \u00ab hymne \u00bb au D\u00e9miurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la pr\u00e9sente enqu\u00eate, consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 une interpr\u00e9tation globale de l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius, on compl\u00e9tera le dossier d\u00e9j\u00e0 rassembl\u00e9 au sujet de la triade chalda\u00efque, en produisant notamment deux textes suppl\u00e9mentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l\u2019\u00e9laboration d\u2019une pistis philosophique, \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse pa\u00efenne contre l\u2019\u00ab ath\u00e9isme \u00bb chr\u00e9tien.\r\n\r\nLa traduction comment\u00e9e d\u2019un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d\u2019\u00e9tudier de pr\u00e8s les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatoniciens qui guident l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te dans sa lecture d\u2019Aristote, et les enjeux th\u00e9ologiques qui dominent son interpr\u00e9tation du De Caelo et pr\u00e9parent, dans l\u2019exp\u00e9rience de la Foi, une union de \u00ab sympathie \u00bb avec la substance m\u00eame du Ciel et avec le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude des \u0153uvres philosophiques de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive, principalement des textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens grecs, favoris\u00e9e par un nombre impressionnant d\u2019\u00e9ditions critiques d\u2019importance majeure, a connu ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies un profond renouvellement herm\u00e9neutique, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 une compr\u00e9hension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-m\u00eames, mais aussi \u00e0 une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux dimensions rh\u00e9toriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont ins\u00e9parables du tr\u00e8s complexe syst\u00e8me philosophique en devenir, forg\u00e9 pendant pr\u00e8s de quatre si\u00e8cles, de Porphyre jusqu\u2019aux derniers professeurs d\u2019Alexandrie.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude du n\u00e9oplatonisme ne peut \u00eatre s\u00e9par\u00e9e de l\u2019histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, politique et religieuse, de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. La th\u00e9ologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement li\u00e9es, soit que la th\u00e9ologie apparaisse comme une \u00ab partie \u00bb de la philosophie, soit que l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me philosophique se d\u00e9signe lui-m\u00eame comme une th\u00e9ologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitul\u00e9s Peri t\u00f4n kata Plat\u014dna Theologias (Th\u00e9ologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologik\u00ea (\u00c9l\u00e9ments de th\u00e9ologie), qui pr\u00e9sentent selon des modes d\u2019exposition tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rents le d\u00e9ploiement de l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me.\r\n\r\nLa th\u00e9ologie savante s\u2019enrichit et s\u2019accompagne d\u2019autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie m\u00eame des philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels th\u00e9urgiques, formes diverses de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la pol\u00e9mique anti-chr\u00e9tienne.\r\n\r\nL\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des textes eux-m\u00eames a \u00e9t\u00e9 renouvel\u00e9e par une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux genres litt\u00e9raires philosophiques et \u00e0 la dimension pragmatique des \u0153uvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d\u2019une r\u00e9flexion sur les \u00ab jeux de langage \u00bb de Wittgenstein, ont contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 renouveler l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisag\u00e9s comme des \u0153uvres litt\u00e9raires \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re, avec leur r\u00e9gime sp\u00e9cifique de syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9, leurs r\u00e8gles, leurs codes, leurs finalit\u00e9s pragmatiques propres.\r\n\r\nAu-del\u00e0 de l\u2019\u00e9rudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caract\u00e9rise le discours philosophique \u2013 nourri \u00e0 la fois de la tradition p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne et des recherches des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre \u2013 ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de m\u00e9ditation spirituelle \u00e0 finalit\u00e9 anagogique, que l\u2019auteur pratique \u00e0 la fois pour lui-m\u00eame et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils rel\u00e8vent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":213,"full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":500,"section_of":360,"pages":"277-363","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":360,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"De l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive au Moyen \u00c2ge. \u00c9tudes de logique aristot\u00e9licienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes \u00e0 Henri Hugonnard-Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Coda\/Martini2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"La circulation du savoir philosophique \u00e0 travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, du syriaque \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, de l\u2019arabe au latin forme, depuis un si\u00e8cle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re. Ce volume r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage \u00e0 un coll\u00e8gue dont l\u2019activit\u00e9 a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche.\r\nSp\u00e9cialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristot\u00e9licienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montr\u00e9 par ses recherches la continuit\u00e9 entre la philosophie de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive et la pens\u00e9e des chr\u00e9tiens de langue syriaque d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, des savants musulmans \u00e9crivant en arabe, de l\u2019autre. R\u00e9unis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois d\u00e9sign\u00e9 comme \u00ab la port\u00e9e \u0153cum\u00e9nique de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 classique \u00bb, des musulmans et des chr\u00e9tiens faisant partie d\u2019un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe si\u00e8cle, sur le texte d\u2019Aristote. Leur \u00ab Aristote \u00bb \u00e9tait souvent celui de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : l\u2019Aristote de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 rencontr\u00e9 quelque quatre si\u00e8cles auparavant et qu\u2019ils avaient traduit, en m\u00eame temps que Galien, et parfois comment\u00e9. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh\u2019ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels \u00e0 en c\u00f4toyer d\u2019autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Bo\u00e8ce, gr\u00e2ce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la vari\u00e9t\u00e9 des langues qui s\u2019y entrem\u00ealent, des traditions de pens\u00e9e qu\u2019il fait fusionner, par l\u2019acribie des contributions et le caract\u00e8re novateur des \u00e9ditions de textes et des \u00e9tudes ponctuelles qu\u2019il contient, t\u00e9moigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l\u2019effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribu\u00e9. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j7haSVMVm5wa9du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":360,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"\u00c9tudes musulmanes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy |
Pages | 55-78 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tuominen, Miira |
Editor(s) | Silva, José Filipe |
Translator(s) |
Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle’s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls ‘experience’. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle’s theory. While the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle’s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1506","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1506,"authors_free":[{"id":2616,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":434,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tuominen, Miira","free_first_name":"Miira","free_last_name":"Tuominen","norm_person":{"id":434,"first_name":"Miira","last_name":"Tuominen","full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2617,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":559,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_last_name":"Silva","norm_person":{"id":559,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","last_name":"Silva","full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050222717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle\u2019s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls \u2018experience\u2019. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle\u2019s theory.\r\n\r\nWhile the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle\u2019s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle\u2019s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":434,"full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":559,"full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1506,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":1506,"section_of":1507,"pages":"55-78","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1507,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QMx2DVooYGq5eIs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1507,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}
Title | A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella |
Pages | 553-560 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Minunno, Giuseppe |
Editor(s) | Loretz, Oswald , Ribichini, Sergio , Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Zamora, José Antonio |
Translator(s) |
Writing about time, Aristotle noted that when someone is unaware of any change in his state of mind, he does not realise that time has elapsed, as happened to those who were recorded in Sardinia as sleeping near the “heroes.” On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval. Aristotle’s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius’ commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle’s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes ὀνείρων ἕνεκεν ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς χρείας; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (φαντασίαν καθευδόντων παρεχόμενα). Tertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"813","_score":null,"_source":{"id":813,"authors_free":[{"id":1205,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":527,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"Minunno","norm_person":{"id":527,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"Minunno","full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038751004","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1206,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":523,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Loretz, Oswald","free_first_name":"Oswald","free_last_name":"Loretz","norm_person":{"id":523,"first_name":"Oswald","last_name":"Loretz","full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119014394","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1207,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":524,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","free_first_name":"Sergio","free_last_name":"Ribichini","norm_person":{"id":524,"first_name":"Sergio","last_name":"Ribichini","full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1197574263","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2513,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":525,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","free_first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","free_last_name":"Watson","norm_person":{"id":525,"first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","last_name":"Watson","full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023330482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2514,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":526,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_last_name":"Zamora","norm_person":{"id":526,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","last_name":"Zamora","full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114954488","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)","main_title":{"title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"},"abstract":"Writing about time, Aristotle noted that when someone is unaware of any change in his state of mind, he does not realise that time has elapsed, as happened to those who were recorded in Sardinia as sleeping near the \u201cheroes.\u201d On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval.\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius\u2019 commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle\u2019s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1).\r\n\r\nTertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":527,"full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":523,"full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":524,"full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":525,"full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":526,"full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":813,"section_of":330,"pages":"553-560","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Xella2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"Anl\u00e4sslich eines besonderen Geburtstag von Paolo Xella widmen ihm seine Kollegen und Freunde eine Festschrift. Den Interessen des bekannten Gelehrten folgend ist das Buch in drei Abschnitte unterteilt, in \"Arch\u00e4ologie - Kunstgeschichte - Numismatik\", \"Philologie - Epigraphik\" und \"History - Die Geschichte der Religionen - Historiographie\". Mehr als 50 Artikel liegen den Fokus vor allem auf die Welt der ph\u00f6nizischen Levante bis nach Spanien. Neben einer gro\u00dfen Zahl von Aufs\u00e4tzen in italienischen Sprache sind Forschungsergebnisse in Englisch, Deutsch und Franz\u00f6sisch zu verzeichnen. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":330,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnster","publisher":"Ugarit","series":"Alter Orient und Altes Testament","volume":"404","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2013]}
Title | Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010 |
Pages | 469-494 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator) |
Translator(s) |
We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public. And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting. The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required. To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author. To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed. All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine. For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things. When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.” In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor. For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":482,"authors_free":[{"id":653,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":654,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2424,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2425,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":479,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Blumenfelder","norm_person":{"id":479,"first_name":"Benedikt","last_name":"Blumenfelder","full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"},"abstract":"We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public.\r\n\r\nAnd if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting.\r\n\r\nThe title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric\/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading \u201cchallenging literary texts.\u201d It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.\r\n\r\nTo play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: \u201cIn this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man\u2019s writings admit of more than one interpretation.\u201d This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author.\r\n\r\nTo avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias\u2019 argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.\r\n\r\nAll participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates\u2019 belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine.\r\n\r\nFor this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things.\r\n\r\nWhen commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) and profound (\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, \u201cfind pleasure in plausible arguments,\u201d based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. \u201cThe more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn this sense, I would also like to be a \u2018profound\u2019 reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor.\r\n\r\nFor, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: \u201cWhat do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?\u201d [conclusion p. 490-492]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":482,"section_of":322,"pages":"469-494","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":322,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"In der modernen Universit\u00e4t werden Literatur, Philologie und Philosophie als unterschiedliche Bereiche betrachtet. Damit wird eine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert zunehmende Entfremdung zwischen der Erforschung antiker Philosophie und Philologie manifest, die den urspr\u00fcnglichen Gegebenheiten in der Antike keineswegs gerecht wird. Denn die Philosophie entwickelt sich in Griechenland und Rom in enger Verbindung mit und oft in einem Spannungsverh\u00e4ltnis zu unterschiedlichen literarischen Genres. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Autoren und Interpreten infolge der Wahl bestimmter Gattungen als Medium philosophischer Botschaften neben der eigentlichen Argumentation auch Darstellungsformen der jeweiligen Gattungen zu w\u00fcrdigen haben. Dieses oft spannungsvolle Verh\u00e4ltnis von philosophischem Argument und literarischer Form auszuleuchten hatte sich der 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie vorgenommen. In Vortr\u00e4gen und Diskussionsrunden von Philosophen und Philologen wurde diese Frage unter verschiedenen Aspekten mit Blick auf antike Philosophen verschiedener Epochen lebendig diskutiert. Dieser Band, der den Gro\u00dfteil dieser Beitr\u00e4ge versammelt, mag einen Eindruck von der Diskussion vermitteln und Philologen, Philosophen und an der Antike Interessierte zu weiteren \u00dcberlegungen anregen. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":322,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2013]}
Title | L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie |
Pages | 51-84 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Louguet, Claire |
Editor(s) | Rousseau, Phillipe |
Translator(s) |
Le système d’Anaxagore est un labyrinthe où l’on se perd et dont on peine à trouver l’issue, une énigme dont on ne peut pourtant s’empêcher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la quête de tout interprète franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais existé ? Était-elle exposée par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute à jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-même les contradictions internes qu’ont décelées ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-même ? Lorsqu’on interprète des textes (et à plus forte raison lorsqu’ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une cohérence qui rende intelligible l’ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des éléments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l’aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui légitime une telle démarche. Il y a autant d’interprétations et d’hypothèses que d’interprètes, et, dans le cas d’Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu’on désespère d’en trouver un jour l’issue. Dans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s’amplifier, dans cette quête effrénée de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite à faire une pause, à nous éloigner du vacarme et à nous taire, pour écouter et réfléchir. Car ce qui distingue la démarche de Lanza, c’est justement qu’elle engage le lecteur à un travail réflexif, à un retour sur son propre travail d’interprète. Si donc les thèses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interprétations, l’important en réalité n’est pas là (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu’il se situe en dehors, car son geste dépasse le cadre général des interprétations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estimé sans doute qu’il reste en deçà ; je dirai pour ma part qu’il va au-delà et qu’il nous emmène au-delà du cadre balisé. Tout dépend de ce que l’on cherche : le Socrate du Théétète ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer considérablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la démarche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but véritable. Ce que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interprétation, les moyens de la construire de la façon la moins naïve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les résultats qu’il obtient en termes de compréhension du système d’Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypothèses qu’il propose, ce genre de considération suffit à rendre son travail original et utile aujourd’hui encore. Si son travail est daté, c’est « par accident » : parce qu’il se situe dans les années 1960, à une époque où les interprétations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) étaient orientées vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des éléments d’Anaxagore. Bien que l’objectif de Lanza ne soit pas polémique, il est évident qu’il a construit sa propre interprétation en opposition à ce genre de reconstructions – cela apparaît comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires. Dans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez datées, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d’attribuer à ces interprètes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l’atomisme. En revanche, j’insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu’ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidité tient au fait que Lanza évolue dans la sphère du vraisemblable et qu’il se montre sensible au fait que son objet possède une unité. Je présenterai d’abord les éléments remarquables de l’interprétation de Lanza, après quoi j’exposerai un point épineux de la réception ancienne et moderne (la question des homéomères), qui a particulièrement intéressé Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une thèse forte qu’il convient d’examiner. [introduction p. 51-52] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1373","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1373,"authors_free":[{"id":2069,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":238,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Louguet, Claire","free_first_name":"Claire","free_last_name":"Louguet","norm_person":{"id":238,"first_name":"Claire","last_name":"Louguet","full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2389,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":457,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rousseau, Phillipe","free_first_name":"Phillipe","free_last_name":"Rousseau","norm_person":{"id":457,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Rousseau","full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038717787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions","main_title":{"title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions"},"abstract":"Le syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore est un labyrinthe o\u00f9 l\u2019on se perd et dont on peine \u00e0 trouver l\u2019issue, une \u00e9nigme dont on ne peut pourtant s\u2019emp\u00eacher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la qu\u00eate de tout interpr\u00e8te franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais exist\u00e9 ? \u00c9tait-elle expos\u00e9e par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute \u00e0 jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-m\u00eame les contradictions internes qu\u2019ont d\u00e9cel\u00e9es ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-m\u00eame ?\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019on interpr\u00e8te des textes (et \u00e0 plus forte raison lorsqu\u2019ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une coh\u00e9rence qui rende intelligible l\u2019ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l\u2019aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui l\u00e9gitime une telle d\u00e9marche. Il y a autant d\u2019interpr\u00e9tations et d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses que d\u2019interpr\u00e8tes, et, dans le cas d\u2019Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu\u2019on d\u00e9sesp\u00e8re d\u2019en trouver un jour l\u2019issue.\r\n\r\nDans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s\u2019amplifier, dans cette qu\u00eate effr\u00e9n\u00e9e de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite \u00e0 faire une pause, \u00e0 nous \u00e9loigner du vacarme et \u00e0 nous taire, pour \u00e9couter et r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir. Car ce qui distingue la d\u00e9marche de Lanza, c\u2019est justement qu\u2019elle engage le lecteur \u00e0 un travail r\u00e9flexif, \u00e0 un retour sur son propre travail d\u2019interpr\u00e8te.\r\n\r\nSi donc les th\u00e8ses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interpr\u00e9tations, l\u2019important en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 n\u2019est pas l\u00e0 (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu\u2019il se situe en dehors, car son geste d\u00e9passe le cadre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des interpr\u00e9tations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estim\u00e9 sans doute qu\u2019il reste en de\u00e7\u00e0 ; je dirai pour ma part qu\u2019il va au-del\u00e0 et qu\u2019il nous emm\u00e8ne au-del\u00e0 du cadre balis\u00e9. Tout d\u00e9pend de ce que l\u2019on cherche : le Socrate du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer consid\u00e9rablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la d\u00e9marche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but v\u00e9ritable.\r\n\r\nCe que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interpr\u00e9tation, les moyens de la construire de la fa\u00e7on la moins na\u00efve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les r\u00e9sultats qu\u2019il obtient en termes de compr\u00e9hension du syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypoth\u00e8ses qu\u2019il propose, ce genre de consid\u00e9ration suffit \u00e0 rendre son travail original et utile aujourd\u2019hui encore.\r\n\r\nSi son travail est dat\u00e9, c\u2019est \u00ab par accident \u00bb : parce qu\u2019il se situe dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 les interpr\u00e9tations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) \u00e9taient orient\u00e9es vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des \u00e9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Anaxagore. Bien que l\u2019objectif de Lanza ne soit pas pol\u00e9mique, il est \u00e9vident qu\u2019il a construit sa propre interpr\u00e9tation en opposition \u00e0 ce genre de reconstructions \u2013 cela appara\u00eet comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nDans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez dat\u00e9es, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d\u2019attribuer \u00e0 ces interpr\u00e8tes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l\u2019atomisme. En revanche, j\u2019insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu\u2019ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidit\u00e9 tient au fait que Lanza \u00e9volue dans la sph\u00e8re du vraisemblable et qu\u2019il se montre sensible au fait que son objet poss\u00e8de une unit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nJe pr\u00e9senterai d\u2019abord les \u00e9l\u00e9ments remarquables de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Lanza, apr\u00e8s quoi j\u2019exposerai un point \u00e9pineux de la r\u00e9ception ancienne et moderne (la question des hom\u00e9om\u00e8res), qui a particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ress\u00e9 Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une th\u00e8se forte qu\u2019il convient d\u2019examiner. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":238,"full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":457,"full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1373,"section_of":340,"pages":"51-84","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":340,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Po\u00e9sie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rousseau2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"Figure critique majeure des \u00e9tudes de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvel\u00e9 en profondeur l'approche des \u0153uvres de la litt\u00e9rature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un int\u00e9r\u00eat, partiellement h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspir\u00e9e notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de m\u00e9diation id\u00e9ologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le pass\u00e9 et le pr\u00e9sent des appropriations culturelles. Les probl\u00e9matiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e dans sa lecture de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, mais leur espace de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n\u2019est pas celui de l\u2019anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l\u2019\u00e9cole fran\u00e7aise. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t l\u2019\u00e9tude du folklore, o\u00f9 l\u2019analyse de la culture populaire est orient\u00e9e par un int\u00e9r\u00eat sp\u00e9cifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais r\u00e9unis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s\u2019est int\u00e9ress\u00e9 \u2013 po\u00e9sie archa\u00efque (Hom\u00e8re), th\u00e9\u00e2tre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie \u00ab pr\u00e9socratique \u00bb et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie \u2013 et dans la diversit\u00e9 de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d\u2019une \u0153uvre scientifique originale et stimulante.\r\n[author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":340,"pubplace":"Lille","publisher":"Presses universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2013]}
Title | La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teofilo Zimara |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2013 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | De Carli, Manuel |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mNF1lCUefItzKac |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1475,"authors_free":[{"id":2556,"entry_id":1475,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":545,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"De Carli, Manuel","free_first_name":"Manuel","free_last_name":"De Carli","norm_person":{"id":545,"first_name":"Manuel","last_name":"De Carli","full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara","main_title":{"title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara"},"abstract":"This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mNF1lCUefItzKac","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":545,"full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1475,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rinascimento meridionale","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":[2013]}
Title | In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 147-173 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus—more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls ‘necessity’. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body. The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings. Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such. In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators. For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.) Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube). These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs): The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire. The octahedron that of air. The icosahedron that of water. The hexahedron that of earth. This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1095","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1095,"authors_free":[{"id":1653,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1654,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1655,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties","main_title":{"title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"},"abstract":"Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus\u2014more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls \u2018necessity\u2019. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.\r\n\r\nPrior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichn\u00ea, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.\r\n\r\nIn order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (diesch\u00eamatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle\u2014that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)\u2014and the right isosceles triangle\u2014a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called \u2018surfaces\u2019 (epiphaneia) by the commentators.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of convenience, I shall call \u2018surfaces\u2019 the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call \u2018triangles\u2019. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)\r\n\r\nSix triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).\r\n\r\nThese polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):\r\n\r\n The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.\r\n The octahedron that of air.\r\n The icosahedron that of water.\r\n The hexahedron that of earth.\r\n\r\nThis model of Plato\u2019s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels\u2014one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are \u2018even higher principles\u2019 that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1095,"section_of":299,"pages":"147-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive |
Pages | 161-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Perrot, Arnaud |
Translator(s) |
Concluons brièvement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d’étudier montre que Proclus n’appréhendait la réalité de son temps, et les chrétiens qui l’entouraient, qu’avec des schèmes de pensée directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseignée par lui-même et par les philosophes de son école. La théorie de l’âme qui lui permet de comprendre l’état d’«ignorance» dans lequel se trouvent les chrétiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la République de Platon. La doctrine de l’oubli (lêthê) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les âmes ignorantes des chrétiens, incarnées et individuelles, dans l’horizon indépassable qui est le leur – le monde de la génésis. La théorie proclienne de la causalité, qui lie la puissance de la Cause à l’extension de ses effets, renforce l’explication par «l’oubli». Et le monothéisme rudimentaire des chrétiens prend son sens par rapport à (et en décalage avec) l’architecture majestueuse de la Théologie platonicienne, qui déploie les ordres divins à partir de l’Un-Bien. Ce monothéisme est comme un lambeau appauvri d’une science théologique à laquelle les chrétiens sont étrangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l’expérience ultime de la vision unitive. Cette perception de la réalité peut sans doute être mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas à provoquer les chrétiens en dépit des difficultés, ainsi que l’a justement suggéré H. D. Saffrey. Au début du VIe siècle, les choses changent, la situation des païens s’assombrit encore – en dépit, ou à cause, de la restauration de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Athènes et de l’enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius – et le ton se durcit : le panorama des âges de l’Humanité, dans la Vie d’Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enquête, laisse éclater une indignation véhémente contre l’Empire chrétien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L’on sait ce que fut l’édit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses conséquences. Mais s’il est une chose qui n’a pas varié, c’est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers néoplatoniciens avaient d’être les détenteurs de l’authentique science théologique. Étaient-ils complètement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l’ampleur quantitative, de la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles ? Peut-on penser qu’ils ignoraient vraiment les œuvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n’entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1143","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1143,"authors_free":[{"id":1716,"entry_id":1143,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2048,"entry_id":1143,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":212,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Perrot","norm_person":{"id":212,"first_name":"Arnaud","last_name":"Perrot","full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135696276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Concluons bri\u00e8vement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d\u2019\u00e9tudier montre que Proclus n\u2019appr\u00e9hendait la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de son temps, et les chr\u00e9tiens qui l\u2019entouraient, qu\u2019avec des sch\u00e8mes de pens\u00e9e directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseign\u00e9e par lui-m\u00eame et par les philosophes de son \u00e9cole. La th\u00e9orie de l\u2019\u00e2me qui lui permet de comprendre l\u2019\u00e9tat d\u2019\u00abignorance\u00bb dans lequel se trouvent les chr\u00e9tiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la R\u00e9publique de Platon. La doctrine de l\u2019oubli (l\u00eath\u00ea) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les \u00e2mes ignorantes des chr\u00e9tiens, incarn\u00e9es et individuelles, dans l\u2019horizon ind\u00e9passable qui est le leur \u2013 le monde de la g\u00e9n\u00e9sis. La th\u00e9orie proclienne de la causalit\u00e9, qui lie la puissance de la Cause \u00e0 l\u2019extension de ses effets, renforce l\u2019explication par \u00abl\u2019oubli\u00bb. Et le monoth\u00e9isme rudimentaire des chr\u00e9tiens prend son sens par rapport \u00e0 (et en d\u00e9calage avec) l\u2019architecture majestueuse de la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne, qui d\u00e9ploie les ordres divins \u00e0 partir de l\u2019Un-Bien. Ce monoth\u00e9isme est comme un lambeau appauvri d\u2019une science th\u00e9ologique \u00e0 laquelle les chr\u00e9tiens sont \u00e9trangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l\u2019exp\u00e9rience ultime de la vision unitive.\r\n\r\nCette perception de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 peut sans doute \u00eatre mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas \u00e0 provoquer les chr\u00e9tiens en d\u00e9pit des difficult\u00e9s, ainsi que l\u2019a justement sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 H. D. Saffrey. Au d\u00e9but du VIe si\u00e8cle, les choses changent, la situation des pa\u00efens s\u2019assombrit encore \u2013 en d\u00e9pit, ou \u00e0 cause, de la restauration de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et de l\u2019enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius \u2013 et le ton se durcit : le panorama des \u00e2ges de l\u2019Humanit\u00e9, dans la Vie d\u2019Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enqu\u00eate, laisse \u00e9clater une indignation v\u00e9h\u00e9mente contre l\u2019Empire chr\u00e9tien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L\u2019on sait ce que fut l\u2019\u00e9dit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses cons\u00e9quences.\r\n\r\nMais s\u2019il est une chose qui n\u2019a pas vari\u00e9, c\u2019est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens avaient d\u2019\u00eatre les d\u00e9tenteurs de l\u2019authentique science th\u00e9ologique. \u00c9taient-ils compl\u00e8tement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l\u2019ampleur quantitative, de la litt\u00e9rature chr\u00e9tienne des premiers si\u00e8cles ? Peut-on penser qu\u2019ils ignoraient vraiment les \u0153uvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n\u2019entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":212,"full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1143,"section_of":358,"pages":"161-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":358,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les chr\u00e9tiens et l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme: identit\u00e9s religieuses et culture grecque dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Perrot2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Les modernes ont souvent oppos\u00e9 les chr\u00e9tiens \u00e0 l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-m\u00eames \u2013 qu\u2019ils soient \u00ab Grecs \u00bb ou chr\u00e9tiens \u2013 semblent avoir th\u00e9matis\u00e9 leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019\u00eatre Grec \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 ? Pour quelles raisons un chr\u00e9tien hell\u00e9nophone, pass\u00e9 par les \u00e9coles de l\u2019Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il \u00eatre un Grec, au m\u00eame titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre \u2013 et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est pos\u00e9 ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d\u2019hell\u00e9nisme, qui peut para\u00eetre moins confessionnelle que celle de \u00ab paganisme \u00bb, est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 marqu\u00e9e par les conflits religieux des \u00e9poques hell\u00e9nistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l\u2019autod\u00e9finition et l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la pol\u00e9mique contre l\u2019Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chr\u00e9tiens et \u00ab l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00bb. Cet ouvrage porte une attention particuli\u00e8re au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs d\u00e9clarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":358,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Rue d'Ulm","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 44-67 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James |
Translator(s) |
A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a ‘perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless ‘proved philosophically fruitful' — whereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur prising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also make use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and ‘the philosopher'— that is, ‘the professor — replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1164","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1164,"authors_free":[{"id":1742,"entry_id":1164,"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}},{"id":2081,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2082,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul","main_title":{"title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul"},"abstract":"A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a \u2018perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless \u2018proved philosophically fruitful' \u2014 \r\nwhereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony \r\nof Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur\u00ad\r\nprising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also \r\nmake use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and \u2018the philosopher'\u2014 that is, \u2018the professor \u2014 replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1164,"section_of":299,"pages":"44-67","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1. |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’ |
Pages | 1-16 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Chase, Michael , Share, Michael |
Translator(s) |
The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius’ usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of "Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World," written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius’ "Commentary on Physics," together with his "Commentary on the de Caelo," provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"767","_score":null,"_source":{"id":767,"authors_free":[{"id":1131,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}},{"id":2326,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2327,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2328,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1.","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."},"abstract":"The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius\u2019 usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of \"Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World,\" written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius\u2019 \"Commentary on Physics,\" together with his \"Commentary on the de Caelo,\" provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":767,"section_of":121,"pages":"1-16","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":121,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bodn\u00e1r\/Chase\/Share2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"In this commentary on Aristotle Physics book eight, chapters one to five, the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius quotes and explains important fragments of the Presocratic philosophers, provides the fragments of his Christian opponent Philoponus' Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, and makes extensive use of the lost commentary of Aristotle's leading defender, Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nThis volume contains an English translation of Simplicius' important commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":121,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Priscien de Lydie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus |
Pages | 1514-1521 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Au total, l’autocitation du commentateur du De anima à sa propre Épitomé de Théophraste peut facilement être mise en rapport, grâce à des arguments philologiques solides, avec la Métaphrase conservée de Priscien, ce qui est également confirmé par l’utilisation de cet ouvrage en d’autres passages du commentaire. Les preuves avancées par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette thèse n’ont jamais été contredites de façon concluante, tandis que les objections faites à leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une réponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer à l’attribution du commentaire à Priscien que l’hypothèse fragile d’une Épitomé perdue de Théophraste ; au vu des particularités doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conservés, cette hypothèse est en elle-même problématique. Dans la mesure où il n’existe aucune preuve positive de l’existence d’un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommandé, dès lors qu’avec la majorité des chercheurs on retire la paternité du commentaire à Simplicius, de considérer Priscien comme son auteur. L’attribution à Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l’appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, grâce à ses très solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fondée que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l’attribution à Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parménide). L’auteur de la présente notice est, pour sa part, persuadé de la justesse de cette attribution. [conclusion p. 1521] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1084","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1084,"authors_free":[{"id":1639,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1640,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscien de Lydie","main_title":{"title":"Priscien de Lydie"},"abstract":"Au total, l\u2019autocitation du commentateur du De anima \u00e0 sa propre \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de Th\u00e9ophraste peut facilement \u00eatre mise en rapport, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des arguments philologiques solides, avec la M\u00e9taphrase conserv\u00e9e de Priscien, ce qui est \u00e9galement confirm\u00e9 par l\u2019utilisation de cet ouvrage en d\u2019autres passages du commentaire.\r\n\r\nLes preuves avanc\u00e9es par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette th\u00e8se n\u2019ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contredites de fa\u00e7on concluante, tandis que les objections faites \u00e0 leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une r\u00e9ponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer \u00e0 l\u2019attribution du commentaire \u00e0 Priscien que l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se fragile d\u2019une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 perdue de Th\u00e9ophraste ; au vu des particularit\u00e9s doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conserv\u00e9s, cette hypoth\u00e8se est en elle-m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique.\r\n\r\nDans la mesure o\u00f9 il n\u2019existe aucune preuve positive de l\u2019existence d\u2019un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommand\u00e9, d\u00e8s lors qu\u2019avec la majorit\u00e9 des chercheurs on retire la paternit\u00e9 du commentaire \u00e0 Simplicius, de consid\u00e9rer Priscien comme son auteur.\r\n\r\nL\u2019attribution \u00e0 Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l\u2019appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 ses tr\u00e8s solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fond\u00e9e que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l\u2019attribution \u00e0 Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parm\u00e9nide).\r\n\r\nL\u2019auteur de la pr\u00e9sente notice est, pour sa part, persuad\u00e9 de la justesse de cette attribution.\r\n[conclusion p. 1521]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1084,"section_of":1378,"pages":"1514-1521","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1378,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x0jZuzeLMaSkQwF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1378,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 129-146 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"812","_score":null,"_source":{"id":812,"authors_free":[{"id":1202,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1203,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1204,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Cristoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory"},"abstract":"Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato\u2019s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius\u2019 responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":812,"section_of":299,"pages":"129-146","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
Pages | 325-340 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
Translator(s) |
At Enchiridion § 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus’ Stoicism and Simplicius’ Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":591,"authors_free":[{"id":840,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2355,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2356,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"},"abstract":"At Enchiridion \u00a7 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Epictetus\u2019 answer, along with Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus\u2019 Stoicism and Simplicius\u2019 Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus\u2019 view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/isb0txplRikCizk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":591,"section_of":258,"pages":"325-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":258,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"d_hoine2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence |
Pages | 317–342 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blackwell, Constance |
Editor(s) | Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery |
Translator(s) |
I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"614","_score":null,"_source":{"id":614,"authors_free":[{"id":869,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":870,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":400,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Clucas, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Clucas","norm_person":{"id":400,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Clucas","full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139992146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2226,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":401,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Forshaw","norm_person":{"id":401,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Forshaw","full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137513941","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2227,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":402,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rees, Valery","free_first_name":"Valery","free_last_name":"Rees","norm_person":{"id":402,"first_name":"Valery","last_name":"Rees","full_name":"Rees, Valery","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033238872","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius","main_title":{"title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"},"abstract":"I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":400,"full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":401,"full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":402,"full_name":"Rees, Valery","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":614,"section_of":613,"pages":"317\u2013342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":613,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Clucas2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino\u2019s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy.\r\n\r\nContributors include: Unn Irene Aasdalen, Constance Blackwell, Paul Richard Blum, Stephen Clucas, Ruth Clydesdale, Brian Copenhaver, John Dillon, Peter J. Forshaw, James Hankins, Hiro Hirai, Sarah Klitenic Wear, David Leech, Letizia Panizza, Valery Rees, and St\u00e9phane Toussaint. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 711-732 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The few facts we have about Simplicius’ life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18–19) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245–320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as "the divine Iamblichus," In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus ("the teacher of my teachers," In Phys. 611.11–12, cf. 795.4–5). The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event. There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7). Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment. There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"965","_score":null,"_source":{"id":965,"authors_free":[{"id":1449,"entry_id":965,"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}},{"id":2091,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia"},"abstract":"The few facts we have about Simplicius\u2019 life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18\u201319) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245\u2013320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as \"the divine Iamblichus,\" In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus (\"the teacher of my teachers,\" In Phys. 611.11\u201312, cf. 795.4\u20135).\r\n\r\nThe expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian\u2019s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480\u2013560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30\u20139 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39\u201344\/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.\r\n\r\nThere has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a \"philosopher-king,\" the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).\r\n\r\nOthers have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu\u2019s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThere are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the \"divine Iamblichus\" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PftkJOubxPYtz2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":965,"section_of":964,"pages":"711-732","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}
Title | Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad |
Pages | 137-150 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Watts, Edward Jay |
Editor(s) | Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W. |
Translator(s) |
This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by briefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators active in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus’ commentary on Plato’s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this productive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the informal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient classroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary from actual classroom experience. Simplicius’ programme shows how an author could adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour that neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of interpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will touch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary transmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some facets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his ideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine the puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an Aristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will build upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience studying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom setting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate the foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions rest. [introduction p. 140] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"440","_score":null,"_source":{"id":440,"authors_free":[{"id":590,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":591,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":359,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","free_first_name":"Josef","free_last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","norm_person":{"id":359,"first_name":"Josef","last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030028400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":592,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":358,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watt, John W.","free_first_name":"John W.","free_last_name":"Watt","norm_person":{"id":358,"first_name":"John W.","last_name":"Watt","full_name":"Watt, John W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131435531","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by \r\nbriefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators \r\nactive in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus\u2019 commentary \r\non Plato\u2019s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this \r\nproductive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the \r\ninformal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient \r\nclassroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nPhysics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary \r\nfrom actual classroom experience. Simplicius\u2019 programme shows how an author \r\ncould adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour \r\nthat neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of \r\ninterpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will \r\ntouch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary \r\ntransmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some \r\nfacets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his \r\nideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine \r\nthe puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an \r\nAristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will \r\nbuild upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience \r\nstudying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom \r\nsetting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate \r\nthe foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions \r\nrest. [introduction p. 140]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":359,"full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":358,"full_name":"Watt, John W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":440,"section_of":271,"pages":"137-150","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":271,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"L\u00f6ssl2011b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":271,"pubplace":"Surrey \u2013 Burlington","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}
Title | ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 21-41 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karasmanis, Vassilis |
Editor(s) | Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geometrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can be continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that «the method of geometers» to which Plato refers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1363","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1363,"authors_free":[{"id":2050,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":214,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","free_first_name":"Vassilis","free_last_name":"Karasmanis","norm_person":{"id":214,"first_name":"Vassilis","last_name":"Karasmanis","full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1190132680","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2403,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2404,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno","main_title":{"title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"},"abstract":"In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geo\u00admetrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can \r\nbe continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that \u00abthe method of geometers\u00bb to which Plato \r\nrefers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":214,"full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1363,"section_of":355,"pages":"21-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":355,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Longo2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. \r\nThe primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the \"hypothetical method\" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1363,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"21-41"}},"sort":[2011]}
Title | Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 1-40 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UotikAt6Giet2tb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"796","_score":null,"_source":{"id":796,"authors_free":[{"id":1174,"entry_id":796,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus"},"abstract":"Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UotikAt6Giet2tb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":796,"section_of":184,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}
Title | What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today |
Pages | 151-163 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M. |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius’ commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle’s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius’ basic conception of what we call Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says:
The disagreement between the philosophers |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"952","_score":null,"_source":{"id":952,"authors_free":[{"id":1429,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1430,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":271,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"Mohr","norm_person":{"id":271,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"Mohr","full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132154315","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1431,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":272,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","free_first_name":"Barbara M.","free_last_name":"Sattler","norm_person":{"id":272,"first_name":"Barbara M.","last_name":"Sattler","full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13210749X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers","main_title":{"title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers"},"abstract":"In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius\u2019 commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius\u2019 basic conception of what we call Aristotle\u2019s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle\u2019s objections to Plato\u2019s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n The disagreement between the philosophers <Plato and Aristotle>\r\n is not substantive, but Aristotle pays attention to those who\r\n understand Plato superficially and frequently raises objections\r\n against the apparent meaning of what Plato says and what can\r\n be understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 640, 28\u201331)\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 point is not that Aristotle is a superficial reader, but that he raises objections to the surface meaning of what Plato says in order to prevent other people from espousing those superficial readings. In connection with another passage in On the Heavens in which Aristotle connects Plato\u2019s association of the cube with earth to earth\u2019s stability, Simplicius refers to Aristotle\u2019s earlier criticism of Plato for allegedly saying that the earth has a winding motion around the pole:\r\n\r\n It is worth pointing out that Aristotle does know that Plato thinks\r\n the earth is steady since it was Plato who said that it is a cube\r\n because it is stable and remains fixed. Consequently, when in\r\n the preceding book he asserted that the earth is said by Timaeus\r\n to be wound and move <around the pole>, he was confronting\r\n those who understand Timaeus\u2019 words in this way.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 662, 31\u2013663, 2)\r\n\r\nSo, Aristotle knows and shares Plato\u2019s true view, and his criticisms are all directed at the superficial readings of Plato made by others. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":271,"full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":272,"full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":952,"section_of":300,"pages":"151-163","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":300,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato\u2019s Timaeus Today","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mohr2010","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass.\r\n\r\nThe Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":300,"pubplace":"Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens","publisher":"Parmenides Publishing","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}
Title | Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 756–764 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | de Haas, F. A. J. |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work "Solutiones ad Chosroem," translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the "Solutiones" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1551,"authors_free":[{"id":2713,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, F. A. J.","free_first_name":"F. A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2714,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"},"abstract":"The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work \"Solutiones ad Chosroem,\" translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the \"Solutiones\" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1551,"section_of":964,"pages":"756\u2013764 ","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2010]}
Title | Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot |
Pages | 87-95 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc |
Editor(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert |
Translator(s) |
Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1105","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1105,"authors_free":[{"id":1668,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1669,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1670,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque","main_title":{"title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque"},"abstract":"Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1105,"section_of":301,"pages":"87-95","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
Title | Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot |
Pages | 97-100 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc |
Editor(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert |
Translator(s) |
This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus‘ concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1106","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1106,"authors_free":[{"id":1671,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1672,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1673,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)","main_title":{"title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"},"abstract":"This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus\u2018 concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1106,"section_of":301,"pages":"97-100","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
Title | Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 245-274 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Harari, Orna |
Editor(s) | Brad Inwood |
Translator(s) |
The ancient commentators’ approach to Aristotle’s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (διαφορά) or a character (χαρακτήρ) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (ἀπόνευσις). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle’s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus’ construal of Aristotle’s category of relatives. In the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers’ mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof. Corresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle’s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus’ distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations. The first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes. Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7). How to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius’ and the other late commentators’ discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius’ discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates. In the second section, I turn to Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates. In light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius’ discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination. In conclusion, I show that Simplicius’ conception of relations originates in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and in Damascius’ account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius’ motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1145","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1145,"authors_free":[{"id":1718,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2804,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brad Inwood","free_first_name":"Brad","free_last_name":"Inwood","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"},"abstract":"The ancient commentators\u2019 approach to Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac) or a character (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus\u2019 construal of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives.\r\n\r\nIn the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers\u2019 mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof.\r\n\r\nCorresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus\u2019 distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations.\r\n\r\nThe first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes.\r\n\r\nPlotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7).\r\n\r\nHow to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius\u2019 and the other late commentators\u2019 discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius\u2019 discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn the second section, I turn to Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius\u2019 discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, I show that Simplicius\u2019 conception of relations originates in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides and in Damascius\u2019 account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius\u2019 motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1145,"section_of":1602,"pages":"245-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1602,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Inwood2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year.\r\n\r\nThe series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1602,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"XXXVII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1145,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"37","issue":"","pages":"245-274"}},"sort":[2009]}
Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
Pages | 89-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
Translator(s) |
Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
Title | Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
Pages | 155-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides’ most celebrated legacy—the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides’ special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.) The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions. To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study. Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it. Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position. In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth. Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo. In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.” Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations. So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways. [conclusion p. 155-158] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2606,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides\u2019 special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity\u2019s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
Title | Diogenes revisited |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 281-290 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels’ devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels’ view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes’ thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?). Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant—some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of “Material Monism” (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham’s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70). In what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1186","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1186,"authors_free":[{"id":1758,"entry_id":1186,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diogenes revisited","main_title":{"title":"Diogenes revisited"},"abstract":"In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels\u2019 devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels\u2019 view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes\u2019 thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?).\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant\u2014some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised.\r\n\r\nIt is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of \u201cMaterial Monism\u201d (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham\u2019s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70).\r\n\r\nIn what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1186,"section_of":351,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 21-36 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as "the last of the physicists," there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that "intellection" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1189,"authors_free":[{"id":1761,"entry_id":1189,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne","main_title":{"title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as \"the last of the physicists,\" there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that \"intellection\" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1189,"section_of":351,"pages":"21-36","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Les fragments |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1192","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1192,"authors_free":[{"id":1763,"entry_id":1192,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les fragments","main_title":{"title":"Les fragments"},"abstract":"A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK) ","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1192,"section_of":351,"pages":"62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Priscianus of Ludia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 695-696 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed. Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian\u2019s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle\u2019s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4\u20135).\r\n\r\nTogether with Themistius\u2019 summary version of Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, Priscian\u2019s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus\u2019 psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.\r\n\r\nPriscian\u2019s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex\u2014only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering\u2014without originality\u2014topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Simplicius of Kilikia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 743-745 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Upon Justinian’s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references). He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers. With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God. In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality. On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination. Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world. Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12). A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought. In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle. Possible Medical Writings Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1264,"authors_free":[{"id":1854,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2094,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2095,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Kilikia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Kilikia"},"abstract":"Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Upon Justinian\u2019s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references).\r\n\r\nHe preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus\u2019 summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.\r\n\r\nWith Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the \u201creturn\u201d to God.\r\n\r\nIn explicating Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle\u2019s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.\r\n\r\nOn scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle\u2019s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called \u201csupernatural.\u201d Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle\u2019s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle\u2019s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato\u2019s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.\r\nContributions to the Concepts of Time and Place\r\n\r\nHis most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus\u2019 criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an \u201corganism\u201d with \u201cmembers.\u201d Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world\u2019s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius\u2019 idea that measure\u2014a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit\u2014determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).\r\n\r\nA second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time\u2019s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being \u201cabove change\u201d (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius\u2019 solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.\r\n\r\nIn his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.\r\nPossible Medical Writings\r\n\r\nSome evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (\u201cOn Setting [Bones]\u201d). [the entire text p. 743-745]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1264,"section_of":1265,"pages":"743-745","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1264,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"743-745"}},"sort":[2008]}
Title | The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories |
Pages | 9-29 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
Editor(s) | Newton, Lloyd A. |
Translator(s) |
The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-Fārābī may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius’ commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain. In a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-Fārābī, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today. It included works—the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas’ case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-Fārābī—which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius. As we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-Fārābī and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-Fārābī, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy. There are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-Fārābī interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-Fārābī, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect. The contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-Fārābī may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul’s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods. What seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-Fārābī, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-Fārābī with Porphyry. Wayne Hankey has written: "Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge." Such ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-Fārābī writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next. Philosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the “Know thyself”, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy. Indeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge. Whatever may have been Iamblichus’ particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education. When in 946 the traveler al-Mas‘ūdī visited Harrān in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan Sābians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading “He who knows his nature becomes god,” which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato’s Alcibiades 133 C. When we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-Fārābī went to Harrān at about the time of al-Mas‘ūdī’s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-Fārābī as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar. In al-Fārābī’s noetics, the potential intellect (al-‘aql bi’l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-‘aql bi’l-fi‘l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself. Unlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles. The human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul’s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles—that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter—in the same way as it knows its own essence. This occurs at the third of al-Fārābī’s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-‘aql al-mustafād). Thus, for al-Fārābī, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions. At a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter. The way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-Fārābī, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-Fārābī as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"609","_score":null,"_source":{"id":609,"authors_free":[{"id":860,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}},{"id":861,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":26,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":{"id":26,"first_name":"Lloyd A. ","last_name":"Newton","full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137965583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","main_title":{"title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},"abstract":"The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain.\r\n\r\nIn a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today.\r\n\r\nIt included works\u2014the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas\u2019 case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2014which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius.\r\n\r\nAs we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy.\r\n\r\nThere are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect.\r\n\r\nThe contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul\u2019s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b with Porphyry.\r\n\r\nWayne Hankey has written:\r\n\r\n \"Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge.\"\r\n\r\nSuch ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next.\r\n\r\nPhilosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the \u201cKnow thyself\u201d, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy.\r\n\r\nIndeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge.\r\n\r\nWhatever may have been Iamblichus\u2019 particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education.\r\n\r\nWhen in 946 the traveler al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b visited Harr\u0101n in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan S\u0101bians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading \u201cHe who knows his nature becomes god,\u201d which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato\u2019s Alcibiades 133 C.\r\n\r\nWhen we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b went to Harr\u0101n at about the time of al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b\u2019s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar.\r\n\r\nIn al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s noetics, the potential intellect (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-fi\u2018l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself.\r\n\r\nUnlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles.\r\n\r\nThe human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul\u2019s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles\u2014that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter\u2014in the same way as it knows its own essence.\r\n\r\nThis occurs at the third of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-\u2018aql al-mustaf\u0101d).\r\n\r\nThus, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions.\r\n\r\nAt a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter.\r\n\r\nThe way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":26,"full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":609,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories |
Pages | 9-30 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Michael Chase |
Editor(s) | Lloyd A. Newton |
Translator(s) |
Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance of Simplicius ’ commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas and al Fārābī. Due in part to Simplicius’ infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic project of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences between them. Interestingly, though, while both al-Fārābī and Aquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle, they differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy subordinate to theology, while al-Fārābī follows Porphyry, who views philosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1584,"authors_free":[{"id":2779,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Michael Chase","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":null},{"id":2780,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lloyd A. Newton ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West"},"abstract":"Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance\r\nof Simplicius \u2019 commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas\r\nand al F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b. Due in part to Simplicius\u2019 infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic\r\nproject of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences\r\nbetween them. Interestingly, though, while both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and\r\nAquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle,\r\nthey differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy\r\nsubordinate to theology, while al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b follows Porphyry, who views\r\nphilosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1584,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-30","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Speculating about Diogenes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy |
Pages | 353-364 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W. |
Translator(s) |
Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar? Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.” I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/438sP1InUW9fsIE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1399","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1399,"authors_free":[{"id":2178,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2181,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2182,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speculating about Diogenes","main_title":{"title":"Speculating about Diogenes"},"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels\u2019s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes\u2019 popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes\u2019 depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of \u201cmaterial monism.\u201d\r\n\r\nI personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham\u2019s paradoxical point); but Graham\u2019s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/438sP1InUW9fsIE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1399,"section_of":1400,"pages":"353-364","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1400,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXFwMNnXTnju9zT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 135-153 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
L’enquête que nous venons de mener est semée d’incertitudes, et elle est souvent aporétique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent être tirées de façon prudente. L’enseignement dispensé dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses propédeutiques jusqu’à l’étude des poèmes “révélés”, impliquait l’usage de livres – le programme pouvant être interprété comme une sorte de “catalogue idéal”. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s’être accompagnée, dans certains cas du moins, d’un usage de manuscrits – sans doute de grand format – dans les marges desquels étaient consignés des développements exégétiques (et l’on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d’écriture pouvait être alors utilisé : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours à une micrographie, comme dans l’exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copié pour Aréthas vers 900 ?). Sur certains dossiers, comme celui de l’origine des modèles de la “Collection philosophique” (la bibliothèque de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progressé, mettant en lumière le rôle probable de Stéphanos d’Alexandrie dans le transfert à Constantinople, au début du VIIᵉ siècle, des modèles tardo-antiques de la Collection. Cet exemple montre que l’on peut attendre, au gré des recherches, un progrès de nos connaissances, par-delà les considérations souvent hypothétiques qui ont été ici présentées. [conclusion p. 152-153] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"502","_score":null,"_source":{"id":502,"authors_free":[{"id":694,"entry_id":502,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":695,"entry_id":502,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"L\u2019enqu\u00eate que nous venons de mener est sem\u00e9e d\u2019incertitudes, et elle est souvent apor\u00e9tique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent \u00eatre tir\u00e9es de fa\u00e7on prudente.\r\n\r\nL\u2019enseignement dispens\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses prop\u00e9deutiques jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des po\u00e8mes \u201cr\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s\u201d, impliquait l\u2019usage de livres \u2013 le programme pouvant \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 comme une sorte de \u201ccatalogue id\u00e9al\u201d. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s\u2019\u00eatre accompagn\u00e9e, dans certains cas du moins, d\u2019un usage de manuscrits \u2013 sans doute de grand format \u2013 dans les marges desquels \u00e9taient consign\u00e9s des d\u00e9veloppements ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et l\u2019on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d\u2019\u00e9criture pouvait \u00eatre alors utilis\u00e9 : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours \u00e0 une micrographie, comme dans l\u2019exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copi\u00e9 pour Ar\u00e9thas vers 900 ?).\r\n\r\nSur certains dossiers, comme celui de l\u2019origine des mod\u00e8les de la \u201cCollection philosophique\u201d (la biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progress\u00e9, mettant en lumi\u00e8re le r\u00f4le probable de St\u00e9phanos d\u2019Alexandrie dans le transfert \u00e0 Constantinople, au d\u00e9but du VII\u1d49 si\u00e8cle, des mod\u00e8les tardo-antiques de la Collection.\r\n\r\nCet exemple montre que l\u2019on peut attendre, au gr\u00e9 des recherches, un progr\u00e8s de nos connaissances, par-del\u00e0 les consid\u00e9rations souvent hypoth\u00e9tiques qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ici pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es. [conclusion p. 152-153]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":502,"section_of":37,"pages":"135-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}
Title | Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 243-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant. Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260. L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie). Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1319","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1319,"authors_free":[{"id":1953,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2375,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les qualit\u00e9s que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent commun\u00e9ment de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clart\u00e9 des expos\u00e9s et la pertinence de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ce commentaire a joui d\u2019une longue post\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez les \u00e9rudits et philosophes byzantins. En t\u00e9moigne d\u2019embl\u00e9e l\u2019abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d\u2019entre eux sont conserv\u00e9s aujourd\u2019hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L\u2019utilisation de ce commentaire \u00e0 Byzance a \u00e9t\u00e9 presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu\u2019\u00e0 Pl\u00e9thon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique (\u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae) de Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote en repr\u00e9sente le point culminant.\r\n\r\nAvant d\u2019aborder l\u2019\u00e9tude qui nous int\u00e9resse ici particuli\u00e8rement, quelques br\u00e8ves pr\u00e9cisions sur la nature de l\u2019ouvrage seront utiles. L\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique \u2013 autrement dit Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 introductif \u2013 est un compendium scolaire divis\u00e9 en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appel\u00e9es commun\u00e9ment Epitom\u00e9 logique et Epitom\u00e9 physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l\u2019essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l\u2019astronomie), la partie physique ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans sa forme finale vers l\u2019an 1260.\r\n\r\nL\u2019Epitom\u00e9 de Blemmyde n\u2019appartient \u00e9videmment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorit\u00e9 mais plut\u00f4t sur des th\u00e8mes philosophiques, qui sont annonc\u00e9s par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l\u2019ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l\u2019\u00e9rudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les sp\u00e9culations \u00e9tendues d\u00e9clench\u00e9es par ce qui est dit ou n\u2019est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorit\u00e9, la mention des auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs, les citations pr\u00e9cises. On a ici affaire non pas \u00e0 un commentateur, mais plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et n\u00e9cessaires (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, comme il le dit lui-m\u00eame dans son autobiographie).\r\n\r\nLes mat\u00e9riaux \u00e0 partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique sont mis en place sont emprunt\u00e9s surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique et au trait\u00e9 Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au trait\u00e9 De la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration et de la corruption et celui d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le rapport de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique \u2013 la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres \u2013 qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous t\u00e2cherons d\u2019aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire appara\u00eetre, d\u2019une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde \u00e0 Simplicius et \u00e9valuer, d\u2019autre part \u2013 en consid\u00e9ration du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fid\u00e8lement des passages entiers de son mod\u00e8le \u2013 le r\u00f4le de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1319,"section_of":37,"pages":"243-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}
Title | La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 29-62 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Mais face à tous les facteurs matériels, sociologiques, historiques qui précarisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de siècle en siècle la disparition de nombre d’entre eux, il s’est trouvé à tous les âges des esprits suffisamment éclairés pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d’autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois même s’en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie. Pour nous aussi, qui affrontons à notre tour de nouveaux supports, c’est peut-être cette activité fondamentale de transmission de l’héritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire à nos successeurs, s’il s’en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons reçu, nous avons essayé d’y mettre un peu d’ordre, nous avons édité et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajouté des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n’étaient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n’avons pas nous-mêmes tout compris, mais tout est bien là. [conclusion p. 61] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1333","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1333,"authors_free":[{"id":1966,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2374,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs ","main_title":{"title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs "},"abstract":"Mais face \u00e0 tous les facteurs mat\u00e9riels, sociologiques, historiques qui pr\u00e9carisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de si\u00e8cle en si\u00e8cle la disparition de nombre d\u2019entre eux, il s\u2019est trouv\u00e9 \u00e0 tous les \u00e2ges des esprits suffisamment \u00e9clair\u00e9s pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d\u2019autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois m\u00eame s\u2019en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie.\r\n\r\nPour nous aussi, qui affrontons \u00e0 notre tour de nouveaux supports, c\u2019est peut-\u00eatre cette activit\u00e9 fondamentale de transmission de l\u2019h\u00e9ritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire \u00e0 nos successeurs, s\u2019il s\u2019en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons re\u00e7u, nous avons essay\u00e9 d\u2019y mettre un peu d\u2019ordre, nous avons \u00e9dit\u00e9 et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajout\u00e9 des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n\u2019\u00e9taient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n\u2019avons pas nous-m\u00eames tout compris, mais tout est bien l\u00e0. [conclusion p. 61]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1333,"section_of":37,"pages":"29-62","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}
Title | Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 332-347 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn |
Translator(s) |
In gewisser Weise bestätigen diese Überlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass „sich eine vollkommen verrückte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies“ (1990, 5). Philoponos’ und Priskians Ausführungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele dafür, wie das Vorverständnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu führte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein originäres Interesse sowohl für den Philosophiehistoriker als auch für denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist. Zudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tatsächlich als „verrückt“ bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. Für die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verrückt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identität zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit über die gesamte ältere Tradition gegenüber den Ansprüchen des Christentums zu erhalten. Zudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der Königsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorgänger zu studieren und das zu übernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beiträgt. Das ist eine Maxime für das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualität verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1149","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1149,"authors_free":[{"id":1724,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2453,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":485,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","free_first_name":"Marcel","free_last_name":"Ackeren, van","norm_person":{"id":485,"first_name":"Marcel","last_name":"Ackeren, van","full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129255769","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2455,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":486,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","free_first_name":"J\u00f6rn","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":486,"first_name":"J\u00f6rn","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132026864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles","main_title":{"title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles"},"abstract":"In gewisser Weise best\u00e4tigen diese \u00dcberlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass \u201esich eine vollkommen verr\u00fcckte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies\u201c (1990, 5). Philoponos\u2019 und Priskians Ausf\u00fchrungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele daf\u00fcr, wie das Vorverst\u00e4ndnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu f\u00fchrte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein origin\u00e4res Interesse sowohl f\u00fcr den Philosophiehistoriker als auch f\u00fcr denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist.\r\n\r\nZudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tats\u00e4chlich als \u201everr\u00fcckt\u201c bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. F\u00fcr die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verr\u00fcckt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identit\u00e4t zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit \u00fcber die gesamte \u00e4ltere Tradition gegen\u00fcber den Anspr\u00fcchen des Christentums zu erhalten.\r\n\r\nZudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der K\u00f6nigsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorg\u00e4nger zu studieren und das zu \u00fcbernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beitr\u00e4gt. Das ist eine Maxime f\u00fcr das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualit\u00e4t verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":485,"full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":486,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1149,"section_of":306,"pages":"332-347","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":306,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"vanAckeren_M\u00fcller_2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkar\u00e4tig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verst\u00e4ndnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster f\u00fcr den modernen Leser und erl\u00e4utern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen k\u00f6nnen. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche \u00dcbersetzungsprobleme k\u00f6nnen auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente \u00fcberhaupt \u00fcberliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung \u00e4lterer Texte, die f\u00fcr ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das f\u00fcr viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HHFDfWDciwoyh50","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":306,"pubplace":"Darmstadt","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | The historiographical project of the Lyceum |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 117-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century. The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental. Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary. [conclusion p. 164-165] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their \"perfection\" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the pr\u00f4tos heuret\u00eas principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato\u2019s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.\r\n\r\nThe key notion of Aristotle\u2019s systematics was epist\u0113m\u0113, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.\r\n\r\nEach of these \"histories\" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of \"principles\" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.\r\n\r\nThis perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus\u2019 works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.\r\n[conclusion p. 164-165]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | A Companion to Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 20-33 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mejer, Jørgen |
Editor(s) | Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context of the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the second century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote biographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times of their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry’s life of Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in four books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have biographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not only collected and edited Plotinus’ writings at the end of the third century ce, he also wrote a vivid description of Plotinus’ life as he knew it from his own time with the Neoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of Proclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in the sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of Isidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in Athens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, the significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts of these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. Taken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, they offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in late antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that Simplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries that are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and for our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"979","_score":null,"_source":{"id":979,"authors_free":[{"id":1478,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":254,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","free_first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","free_last_name":"Mejer","norm_person":{"id":254,"first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","last_name":"Mejer","full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1176526987","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1479,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1480,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition"},"abstract":"Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context \r\nof the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the \r\nsecond century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote \r\nbiographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times \r\nof their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry\u2019s life \r\nof Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in \r\nfour books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have \r\nbiographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not \r\nonly collected and edited Plotinus\u2019 writings at the end of the third century ce, he also \r\nwrote a vivid description of Plotinus\u2019 life as he knew it from his own time with the \r\nNeoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of \r\nProclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in \r\nthe sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of \r\nIsidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in \r\nAthens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, \r\nthe significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts \r\nof these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. \r\nTaken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, \r\nthey offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in \r\nlate antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that \r\nSimplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries \r\nthat are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and \r\nfor our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":254,"full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":979,"section_of":167,"pages":"20-33","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | Reading Plato in antiquity |
Pages | 185-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk |
Translator(s) |
In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization. Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff). As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one. There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear. In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle. I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"916","_score":null,"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | A Companion to Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 597-622 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of communal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school’s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical pedagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":503,"authors_free":[{"id":696,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":697,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":698,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators","main_title":{"title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of com\u00admunal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school\u2019s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organ\u00adized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical ped\u00adagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":503,"section_of":167,"pages":"597-622","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | The history of astronomy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 228-277 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus’ Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them. Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time. Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate. The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory. Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147). All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time. Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted. Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions. [introduction p. 228-230] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"The History of Astronomy, Eudemus\u2019 last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus\u2019 Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In A\u00ebtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.\r\n\r\nInteresting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus\u2019 and Theophrastus\u2019 material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.\r\n\r\nLet us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus\u2019 work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.\r\n\r\nThe number of books in the History of Astronomy (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2') as given in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus\u2019 theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus\u2019 disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 rendering of Callippus\u2019 theory.\r\n\r\nHence, Simplicius\u2019 evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus\u2019 work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius\u2019 three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).\r\n\r\nAll this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus\u2019 work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.\r\n\r\nAs for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius\u2019 predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus\u2019 Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus\u2019 works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.\r\n\r\nGenerally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus\u2019 summary of Posidonius\u2019 Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!\r\n\r\nIn the case of Eudemus, the commentator\u2019s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus\u2019 theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter\u2019s work is not available (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus\u2019 book, was at Simplicius\u2019 disposal.\r\n\r\nFurther, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then \u201camplified\u201d him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.\r\n\r\nAnother possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes\u2019 work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus\u2019 system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.\r\n\r\nHence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.\r\n[introduction p. 228-230]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csHTzFsKJd5J17a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | The history of geometry |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 166-214 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle’s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle’s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher’s writings (fr. 6). While Eudemus’ Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list. In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death). The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences. There is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus’ History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity. Although Eudemus’ works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus’ failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed. Meanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature. Eratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius. Thus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1427,"authors_free":[{"id":2238,"entry_id":1427,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of geometry","main_title":{"title":"The history of geometry"},"abstract":"We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle\u2019s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle\u2019s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher\u2019s writings (fr. 6).\r\n\r\nWhile Eudemus\u2019 Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus\u2019 works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus\u2019 works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener\u2019s suggestion that these were Eudemus\u2019 works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus\u2019 list.\r\n\r\nIn the same list, we find another work, \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2', which, contrary to Wehrli\u2019s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus\u2019 History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus\u2019 historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus\u2019 physical doxography and Meno\u2019s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle\u2019s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335\/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322\/1 (Aristotle\u2019s death).\r\n\r\nThe majority of those who have studied Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter\u2019s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle\u2019s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences.\r\n\r\nThere is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus\u2019 History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity.\r\n\r\nAlthough Eudemus\u2019 works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus\u2019 failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature.\r\n\r\nEratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius.\r\n\r\nThus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1427,"section_of":1214,"pages":"166-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
Title | Movers and Shakers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown |
Pages | 19-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lane Fox, Robin |
Editor(s) | Smith, Andrew |
Translator(s) |
In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to change a person’s choice of life and scale of values. The ‘shakers’ of my title are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, including Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual’s relation to contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then the philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, some took this option, and they are my ‘movers’. Both the ‘shakers’ and the ‘movers’ need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, but a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep analysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian’s grasp, and so I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading of particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"881","_score":null,"_source":{"id":881,"authors_free":[{"id":1294,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1295,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Movers and Shakers","main_title":{"title":"Movers and Shakers"},"abstract":"In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to \r\nchange a person\u2019s choice of life and scale of values. The \u2018shakers\u2019 of my \r\ntitle are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, \r\nincluding Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual\u2019s relation \r\nto contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then \r\nthe philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, \r\nsome took this option, and they are my \u2018movers\u2019. Both the \u2018shakers\u2019 and the \r\n\u2018movers\u2019 need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, \r\nbut a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep \r\nanalysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian\u2019s grasp, and \r\nso I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading \r\nof particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":881,"section_of":266,"pages":"19-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown |
Pages | 231-244 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lane Fox, Robin |
Editor(s) | Smith, Andrew |
Translator(s) |
Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the ‘Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the émigrés’ presence. Its participants presented themselves as the ‘Sabians’, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist ‘survival’ has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: ‘it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius’ inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct — route from Athens’. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EVFox3CG77HUjPw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"882","_score":null,"_source":{"id":882,"authors_free":[{"id":1296,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1297,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'","main_title":{"title":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'"},"abstract":"Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the \u2018Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth\/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the \u00e9migr\u00e9s\u2019 presence. Its participants presented themselves as \r\nthe \u2018Sabians\u2019, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist \u2018survival\u2019 has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: \u2018it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius\u2019 inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct \u2014 route from Athens\u2019. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EVFox3CG77HUjPw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":882,"section_of":266,"pages":"231-244","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Philosophy in the Age of Justinian |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian |
Pages | 316-340 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Maas, Michael |
Translator(s) |
In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques tion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, (c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they shaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the period that concerns us. [p. 318] To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate otherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to establish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or less open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major schools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ ent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, broadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, as far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, the Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the sixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of interpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally been a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community attending the Alexandrian philosophers’ lectures and classes (which would temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less of a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"428","_score":null,"_source":{"id":428,"authors_free":[{"id":577,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":578,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names \r\nof nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques\u00ad\r\ntion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of \r\nphilosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow\u00ad\r\nering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, \r\n(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc\u00ad\r\ncur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they \r\nshaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the \r\nperiod that concerns us. [p. 318] \r\nTo illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate \r\notherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to \r\nestablish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we \r\nnow turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or \r\nless open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued \r\nthat one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions \r\nwithin the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic\u00ad\r\nular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major \r\nschools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ\u00ad\r\nent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by \r\nSyrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, \r\nbroadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, \r\nas far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, \r\nthe Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, \r\nand by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the \r\nsixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of \r\ninterpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio\u00ad\r\ncultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally \r\nbeen a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community \r\nattending the Alexandrian philosophers\u2019 lectures and classes (which \r\nwould temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, \r\nas compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less \r\nof a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":428,"section_of":17,"pages":"316-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":17,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Maas2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy |
Pages | 10-32 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C. |
Translator(s) |
In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1285","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1285,"authors_free":[{"id":1874,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2341,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2342,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":446,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","free_first_name":"Taylor","free_last_name":"Richard C.","norm_person":{"id":446,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation","main_title":{"title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation"},"abstract":"In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":446,"full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1285,"section_of":1309,"pages":"10-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1309,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson_Taylor2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jcHNB2bxIDAfZNw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1309,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance |
Pages | 163-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato’s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus’ treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world. In this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates. Simplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus’ polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is “forced” to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato. How different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle’s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"483","_score":null,"_source":{"id":483,"authors_free":[{"id":656,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":657,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":658,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise","main_title":{"title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise"},"abstract":"In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato\u2019s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus\u2019 treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world.\r\n\r\nIn this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus\u2019 polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is \u201cforced\u201d to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato.\r\n\r\nHow different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle\u2019s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":483,"section_of":321,"pages":"163-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Empedocles' Life Cycles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers |
Pages | 331-371 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Pierrēs, Apostolos L. |
Translator(s) |
In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love’s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss—a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved. It was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles’ On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles’ physics. If we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles’ zoogony—his theory of the origins of life—it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been. The following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles’ aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world’s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or ‘roots.’ And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit. A major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles’ concentration on Love’s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife’s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife’s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us. Thus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it. Although it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak. It consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles "also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love." I am not the first to point out that "under Love" and "under Strife" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context. Aristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles’ various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love—i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes. (It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q7rH00eYu70k9Td |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"491","_score":null,"_source":{"id":491,"authors_free":[{"id":672,"entry_id":491,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":673,"entry_id":491,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles"},"abstract":"In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love\u2019s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss\u2014a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved.\r\n\r\nIt was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles\u2019 On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles\u2019 physics.\r\n\r\nIf we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles\u2019 zoogony\u2014his theory of the origins of life\u2014it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been.\r\n\r\nThe following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles\u2019 aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world\u2019s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or \u2018roots.\u2019 And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit.\r\n\r\nA major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles\u2019 concentration on Love\u2019s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife\u2019s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife\u2019s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us.\r\n\r\nThus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it.\r\n\r\nAlthough it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak.\r\n\r\nIt consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles \"also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love.\" I am not the first to point out that \"under Love\" and \"under Strife\" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context.\r\n\r\nAristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles\u2019 various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love\u2014i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes.\r\n\r\n(It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q7rH00eYu70k9Td","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":491,"section_of":317,"pages":"331-371","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance |
Pages | 195-212 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Guldentops, Guy |
Editor(s) | Steel, Carlos , Leinkauf, Thomas |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius’ use of the Ti maeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference between his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I’ll try to detail some differences between Alexander’s and Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I’ll focus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world soul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas sages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius’ general attitude toward Alexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the theme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/650gVOAyvHZdk8u |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"526","_score":null,"_source":{"id":526,"authors_free":[{"id":736,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":151,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Guldentops, Guy","free_first_name":"Guy","free_last_name":"Guldentops","norm_person":{"id":151,"first_name":"Guy","last_name":"Guldentops","full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031934898","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":737,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":738,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius\u2019 use of the Ti\u00ad\r\nmaeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference \r\nbetween his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I\u2019ll try to detail some differences between Alexander\u2019s \r\nand Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I\u2019ll \r\nfocus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world \r\nsoul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas\u00ad\r\nsages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius\u2019 general attitude toward \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the \r\ntheme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/650gVOAyvHZdk8u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":151,"full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":526,"section_of":321,"pages":"195-212","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Commentators on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
Translator(s) |
There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care. Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis. The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle’s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement. [conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1306","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1306,"authors_free":[{"id":1930,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2097,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care.\r\n\r\nDue to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis.\r\n\r\nThe exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle\u2019s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement.\r\n[conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1306,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":{"id":1306,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2005]}
Title | Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers |
Pages | 93-137 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Janko, Richard |
Editor(s) | Pierrēs, Apostolos L. |
Translator(s) |
In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles’ Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy. The first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed. In the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1358,"authors_free":[{"id":2034,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2391,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction"},"abstract":"In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles\u2019 Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed.\r\n\r\nIn the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1358,"section_of":317,"pages":"93-137","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2005]}
Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 163-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
Translator(s) |
I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003 |
Pages | 89-98 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | O’Meara, Dominic J. |
Editor(s) | Gannagé, Emma |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual of Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school’s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the passage in Simplicius’ commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"663","_score":null,"_source":{"id":663,"authors_free":[{"id":966,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O\u2019Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O\u2019Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":967,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":467,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","free_first_name":"Emma","free_last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":467,"first_name":" Emma","last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102294063","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual \r\nof Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school\u2019s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the pas\u00adsage in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":467,"full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":663,"section_of":303,"pages":"89-98","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":303,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gannag\u00e92004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"Review: Durant deux semaines s\u2019est r\u00e9uni ce symposium de sp\u00e9cialistes concern\u00e9s, de loin ou de pr\u00e8s, par le th\u00e8me d\u00e9battu. Les uns y auront particip\u00e9 tout au long, les autres pour une p\u00e9riode plus courte. Le temps se trouvait r\u00e9parti entre expos\u00e9s, discussions et lectures de textes, les actes maintenant publi\u00e9s ne refl\u00e9tant en cons\u00e9quence et, malgr\u00e9 les dimensions de l\u2019ouvrage, qu\u2019une partie des contributions qui ont scand\u00e9 ces journ\u00e9es d\u2019\u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nNous tirons ces d\u00e9tails de l\u2019Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la r\u00e9union et qu\u2019on peut consid\u00e9rer comme la premi\u00e8re \u00e9ditrice scientifique du volume collectif, \u00e0 en juger, entre autres, par les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On conna\u00eet, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l\u2019occasion de r\u00e9unir les coll\u00e8gues int\u00e9ress\u00e9s autour de l\u2019une des composantes de cette pens\u00e9e, pens\u00e9e dont l\u2019analyse s\u2019av\u00e8re tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. \u00c0 ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l\u2019id\u00e9e de publier les fruits de cette r\u00e9flexion, men\u00e9e dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la r\u00e9gion o\u00f9 l\u2019orientation politique de la religion est \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb intens\u00e9ment, m\u00eame si le p\u00e9riodique en cause appartient \u00e0 une institution acad\u00e9mique mi-\u00e9trang\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nL\u2019ouvrage s\u2019ouvre par une grosse \u00e9tude sur le r\u00e9alisme de la pens\u00e9e politique grecque, dont l\u2019auteur figure parmi les cinq co\u00e9diteurs de l\u2019ouvrage : \u2013 Eckart Sch\u00fctrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36.\r\n\r\nPr\u00e9c\u00e9dant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une s\u00e9rie de cinq contributions \u00e9tudie la r\u00e9ception des id\u00e9es politiques de la Gr\u00e8ce antique durant la Basse Antiquit\u00e9 et nous offre un tableau g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la pens\u00e9e politique du Moyen-Orient \u00e0 la veille de l\u2019apparition de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo\u2019s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; \u2013 Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; \u2013 Dominic J. O\u2019Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un disciple de Damascius, exil\u00e9 avec son ma\u00eetre en Perse, lors de la suppression de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes par Justinien) ; \u2013 Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), \u00c9thique et politique au premier \u00e2ge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s\u2019int\u00e9resse plus \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9thique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu\u2019\u00e0 la politique de la cit\u00e9) ; \u2013 John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149.\r\n\r\nLes deux expos\u00e9s suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu\u2019ici peu relev\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir : l\u2019importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux d\u00e9buts de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asr\u0101r (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; \u2013 Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1).\r\n\r\nUne double conclusion ressort de ces deux \u00e9tudes, renforc\u00e9e par la lecture de plusieurs des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes : d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, la diffusion certaine de la pens\u00e9e grecque en territoire iranien et, de l\u2019autre, l\u2019impact ind\u00e9niable de la tradition persane dans l\u2019ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En cons\u00e9quence, l\u2019islam naissant a rencontr\u00e9 une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, m\u00eame si le prestige de l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00e9tait plus grand au moment de l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la culture musulmane classique.\r\n\r\nP. Crone est consciente de cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9, allant m\u00eame jusqu\u2019\u00e0 affirmer qu\u2019au-del\u00e0 du mouvement de traductions avec la cha\u00eene de production litt\u00e9raire qui s\u2019en est suivie, somme toute accessible \u00e0 des milieux restreints, le background hell\u00e9no-iranien en question a constitu\u00e9 les v\u00e9ritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). \u00c0 ce propos, elle situe les d\u00e9buts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie si\u00e8cle avec l\u2019\u00e9mergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, herm\u00e9tisme et cycle d\u2019Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches r\u00e9centes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 connus d\u00e8s la seconde p\u00e9riode omeyyade, \u00e0 savoir d\u00e8s les d\u00e9buts de ce m\u00eame si\u00e8cle. \r\nLa plupart des interventions traitant du th\u00e8me central sont consacr\u00e9es au \u00ab Faylas\u016bf al-isl\u0101m \u00bb. La derni\u00e8re, celle sur les textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure o\u00f9 al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b est le plus grand repr\u00e9sentant de ce courant en islam : \u2013 P. Crone, Al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; \u2013 Emma Gannag\u00e9 (USJ), Y a-t-il une pens\u00e9e politique dans le Kit\u0101b al-\u1e24ur\u016bf d\u2019al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b ?, p. 229-257 ; \u2013 Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), The Meaning of madan\u012b in F.\u2019s \u201c Political \u201d Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; \u2013 Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle \u00ab sensationnelle \u00bb d\u2019Ibn Ru\u0161d, que nous trouverons plus loin). \u2013 Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-N\u00fcrnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les diff\u00e9rents textes connus sous le nom de Naw\u0101m\u012bs [Afl\u0101\u1e6d\u016bn], avec de longs extraits de l\u2019un d\u2019eux).\r\n\r\nDeux autres articles abordent des textes de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme fatimide, o\u00f9 les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, n\u00e9gligeables : \u2013 Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli \u201c L\u2019Orientale \u201d), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the \u201c Regal Policy \u201d in the Ikhw\u0101n al-\u1e62af\u0101, p. 337-365 ; \u2013 Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), \u201c In Praise of al-\u1e24\u0101kim \u201d. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e g\u00e9n\u00e9ration de du\u02bf\u0101\u2019 ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les v\u00e9ritables relations de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.).\r\n\r\nD\u00e9laissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand m\u00eame deux \u00ab texts papers \u00bb qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe \u00e0 al-\u0120azz\u0101l\u012b : \u2013 Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazz\u0101l\u012b\u2019s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410.\r\n\r\nLa difficult\u00e9 d\u2019un expos\u00e9 sur la mati\u00e8re tient du fait de l\u2019existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d\u2019une \u0153uvre qui scelle, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, la p\u00e9riode classique. \u00c0 notre avis, l\u2019auteur aurait d\u00fb donner plus d\u2019attention dans son analyse \u00e0 deux facteurs suppl\u00e9mentaires : le public auquel s\u2019adressait le th\u00e9ologien-soufi (philosophes et \u00e9rudits ou bien l\u2019umma en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral) et la chronologie de ses \u00e9crits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Sel\u010d\u016bks a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9terminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment mis en \u00e9vidence, du moins au niveau de l\u2019imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l\u2019ouvrage d\u2019O. Safi (2).\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanci\u00e9e de la pens\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00ab artisan \u00bb de cette nouvelle soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et de sa culture, Ni\u1e93\u0101m al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu\u2019exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui \u00eatre imput\u00e9es (emp\u00eachement des sp\u00e9cialistes contact\u00e9s\u2026), pourra \u00eatre partiellement combl\u00e9e. Mais ce serait surtout l\u2019ouvrage de M. Allam qui r\u00e9pondrait le mieux \u00e0 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 ressentie de suivre les d\u00e9veloppements post\u00e9rieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l\u2019auteur y analyse, en particulier, la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 du A\u1e2bl\u0101q-i N\u0101\u1e63ir\u012b du polygraphe ism\u0101\u02bf\u012blien N\u0101\u1e63ir al-D\u012bn al-T\u016bs\u012b (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pens\u00e9e gr\u00e9co-musulmane.\r\n\r\nMais \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de cet Orient, l\u2019ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d\u2019Occident. \u00c0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de deux expos\u00e9s qui n\u2019y ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands repr\u00e9sentants de cette tradition : \u2013 Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; \u2013 Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 443-467 ; \u2013 Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gr\u00e9co-arabe dans la Muqaddima d\u2019Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 469-497.\r\n\r\nLes deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9ception de la pens\u00e9e antique dans le monoth\u00e9isme \u00ab rival \u00bb (si l\u2019on peut s\u2019exprimer ainsi), qu\u2019il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : \u2013 Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and \u201c Byzantine Political Philosophy \u201d, p. 499-523 ; \u2013 Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot \u00ab Fathers \u00bb est utilis\u00e9 abusivement, dans la mesure o\u00f9 l\u2019unique \u00ab P\u00e8re de l\u2019\u00c9glise \u00bb abord\u00e9 ici est Isidore de S\u00e9ville, le dernier de langue latine !).\r\nLe volume se termine sur une bibliographie d\u00e9taill\u00e9e des sources et des \u00e9tudes cit\u00e9es (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l\u2019on consid\u00e8re de plus l\u2019ampleur du sujet et la qualit\u00e9, en m\u00eame temps que les dimensions, des diff\u00e9rentes \u00e9tudes, l\u2019ouvrage se pr\u00e9sente en fait comme un manuel de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et une bonne introduction \u00e0 la philosophie politique de tradition gr\u00e9co-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compl\u00e9ter la biblioth\u00e8que qui s\u2019est progressivement accumul\u00e9e, ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies autour de la question.\r\nAdel Sidarus\r\nUniversit\u00e9 d\u2019Evora","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vUA05cpGz8q7urg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":303,"pubplace":"Beyrouth","publisher":"Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale - Dar El-Machreq","series":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"57","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 37-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":[2004]}
Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 239-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 47-87 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien. Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : Comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats. Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens. Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique et Proclus. David (Élias) pour sa part nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προτρεπτικοί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d’exhortations non techniques aptes à fournir l’instruction éthique préparatoire dont le débutant en philosophie devait déjà être imprégné. Dès lors, il fallait qu’il interprète le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l’éthique stoïcienne culminant dans l’apatheia du sage stoïcien, comme cela aurait été normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En procédant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le système éthique néoplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d’une manière tout à fait étonnante et sans jointure apparente, l’éthique du stoïcisme, évidemment sans ses bases matérialistes, l’éthique de l’Ancienne Académie et l’éthique péripatéticienne. Le néoplatonisme avait admis en effet, à partir de Porphyre, l’existence de quatre degrés de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus « politiques » ou « civiles » ou « pratiques », impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c’est-à-dire la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En revanche, les degrés de vertu supérieurs se fondaient sur l’apatheia stoïcienne. Comme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s’adressaient à des débutants, cette œuvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la préparation au premier degré des vertus, donc aux vertus « civiles » ou « politiques » régies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caractérisent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropriées, comme leur nom l’indique, au citoyen vertueux, c’est-à-dire à quelqu’un qui prend activement part à la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d’après les péripatéticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe néoplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou même les vertus théorétiques. L’homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l’explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-même, c’est-à-dire sur son âme raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-même, donc vers son âme raisonnable, de vouloir réaliser cette « conversion », est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu’un qui est désormais désireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c’est à ce genre d’hommes que s’adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxième partie du Manuel (à partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s’agit pas de ceux qui seraient déjà en possession des vertus cathartiques ni même des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progrès vers l’acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagnée de l’étude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la même la première condition pour pouvoir plus tard, après s’être longuement familiarisés avec les études philosophiques, acquérir les vertus cathartiques. Le Manuel d’Épictète s’adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une première partie, à ceux qui n’ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer à purifier leurs mœurs et leur âme, autrement dit, à soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles à la raison. La deuxième partie concernerait ceux qui ont déjà fait des progrès sur le chemin qui mène à la domination des passions et commencent à s’intéresser à la philosophie elle-même. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit de débutants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s’initier à la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JJVi9durYJt0iuG |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"782","_score":null,"_source":{"id":782,"authors_free":[{"id":1148,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1149,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1150,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1151,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : Comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique et Proclus. David (\u00c9lias) pour sa part nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af). Nous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d\u2019exhortations non techniques aptes \u00e0 fournir l\u2019instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire dont le d\u00e9butant en philosophie devait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00eatre impr\u00e9gn\u00e9. D\u00e8s lors, il fallait qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l\u2019\u00e9thique sto\u00efcienne culminant dans l\u2019apatheia du sage sto\u00efcien, comme cela aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne.\r\n\r\nEn proc\u00e9dant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le syst\u00e8me \u00e9thique n\u00e9oplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait \u00e9tonnante et sans jointure apparente, l\u2019\u00e9thique du sto\u00efcisme, \u00e9videmment sans ses bases mat\u00e9rialistes, l\u2019\u00e9thique de l\u2019Ancienne Acad\u00e9mie et l\u2019\u00e9thique p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. Le n\u00e9oplatonisme avait admis en effet, \u00e0 partir de Porphyre, l\u2019existence de quatre degr\u00e9s de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus \u00ab politiques \u00bb ou \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab pratiques \u00bb, impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. En revanche, les degr\u00e9s de vertu sup\u00e9rieurs se fondaient sur l\u2019apatheia sto\u00efcienne.\r\n\r\nComme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s\u2019adressaient \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants, cette \u0153uvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la pr\u00e9paration au premier degr\u00e9 des vertus, donc aux vertus \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab politiques \u00bb r\u00e9gies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caract\u00e9risent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropri\u00e9es, comme leur nom l\u2019indique, au citoyen vertueux, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 quelqu\u2019un qui prend activement part \u00e0 la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d\u2019apr\u00e8s les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou m\u00eame les vertus th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques.\r\n\r\nL\u2019homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l\u2019explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-m\u00eame, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire sur son \u00e2me raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-m\u00eame, donc vers son \u00e2me raisonnable, de vouloir r\u00e9aliser cette \u00ab conversion \u00bb, est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu\u2019un qui est d\u00e9sormais d\u00e9sireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c\u2019est \u00e0 ce genre d\u2019hommes que s\u2019adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxi\u00e8me partie du Manuel (\u00e0 partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s\u2019agit pas de ceux qui seraient d\u00e9j\u00e0 en possession des vertus cathartiques ni m\u00eame des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progr\u00e8s vers l\u2019acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagn\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00e9tude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la m\u00eame la premi\u00e8re condition pour pouvoir plus tard, apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre longuement familiaris\u00e9s avec les \u00e9tudes philosophiques, acqu\u00e9rir les vertus cathartiques.\r\n\r\nLe Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te s\u2019adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une premi\u00e8re partie, \u00e0 ceux qui n\u2019ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer \u00e0 purifier leurs m\u0153urs et leur \u00e2me, autrement dit, \u00e0 soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles \u00e0 la raison. La deuxi\u00e8me partie concernerait ceux qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait des progr\u00e8s sur le chemin qui m\u00e8ne \u00e0 la domination des passions et commencent \u00e0 s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 la philosophie elle-m\u00eame. Dans les deux cas, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9butants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s\u2019initier \u00e0 la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JJVi9durYJt0iuG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":782,"section_of":218,"pages":"47-87","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 183-211 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Nous avons vu, à l’aide de plusieurs exemples, la manière dont le néoplatonicien Simplicius avait commenté un texte stoïcien. Nous avons constaté que Simplicius ne peut s’empêcher de réintroduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure où ses auditeurs ou lecteurs débutants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines néoplatoniciennes très complexes, qui n’ont rien à voir avec le texte du Manuel. Les conclusions que l’on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la méthode exégétique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur Épictète, mais également pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caractérise la méthode exégétique de Simplicius commentant les traités d’Aristote, c’est la simplicité et l’objectivité. Il en conclut que, puisque l’auteur du commentaire du De anima d’Aristote attribué à Simplicius donne libre cours à son interprétation néoplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut être l’auteur de ce commentaire. Il est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les œuvres de logique, le néoplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d’occasions d’introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va déjà autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s’agit du De anima, traité qui se plaçait, dans le cursus néoplatonicien, immédiatement avant la Métaphysique d’Aristote, et qui abordait des problèmes métaphysiques, la situation était toute différente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines néoplatoniciennes différaient largement de celles d’Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver à chaque pas l’harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote revenait à un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente différence de méthode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l’âme que professaient Aristote et les néoplatoniciens. Plus généralement, quand on compare la position d’un stoïcien comme Épictète concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d’un néoplatonicien, en l’occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d’autonomie à l’égard du divin chez le philosophe néoplatonicien. Le stoïcien, en s’appuyant exclusivement sur la cohérence de son système et sur la force de sa raison, qu’il croit apte à diriger une vie vertueuse s’il est décidé à la suivre, se considère maître autonome de sa relation à Dieu. La question du salut de son âme après sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui. Il en va autrement du philosophe néoplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son âme, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement systématisée et abstraite et d’une vie vertueuse, de l’aide des dieux, en partie obtenue grâce à des rites qu’il croit transmis par des « révélations ». Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses païennes, ressemble finalement à celle du christianisme recourant à des rites et des sacrements. À vrai dire, lorsqu'il s’agit du philosophe néoplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la théurgie correspondant à son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, à une union mystique avec l’Un ou l’Ineffable. Mais tandis que Plotin arrivait à cette union par des moyens autonomes, les néoplatoniciens à partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d’y arriver tout à fait par eux-mêmes ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs âmes dans leur patrie sans l’aide d’un certain rituel. Il persiste néanmoins de grandes différences entre la « religion » néoplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d’autres religions qui ont la prétention de posséder seules la vérité. La plus importante de ces différences, à mes yeux, consiste en la tolérance et l’ouverture d’esprit vis-à-vis des religions étrangères. Nous avons vu comment les néoplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des différents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences étaient des manifestations d’une même divinité, appropriées à la diversité des régions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux différentes religions localement implantées une sorte d’égalité de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu’on arrivait en qualité d’étranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux différent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et même s’y conformer au moins extérieurement. Cet esprit d’ouverture et de tolérance religieuse s’est largement perdu avec la fin de l’Antiquité gréco-romaine et nous fait tellement défaut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi Épictète, auraient certainement approuvé les mots du préfet païen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la décision de l’empereur chrétien de faire enlever de la salle du Sénat romain l’autel de la Victoire : « Nous contemplons les mêmes astres, le ciel nous est commun, le même monde nous enveloppe. Qu’importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la vérité ? À un si grand mystère on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. » [conclusion p. 208-211] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"945","_score":null,"_source":{"id":945,"authors_free":[{"id":1409,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1410,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1411,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1412,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Nous avons vu, \u00e0 l\u2019aide de plusieurs exemples, la mani\u00e8re dont le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius avait comment\u00e9 un texte sto\u00efcien. Nous avons constat\u00e9 que Simplicius ne peut s\u2019emp\u00eacher de r\u00e9introduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses auditeurs ou lecteurs d\u00e9butants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes tr\u00e8s complexes, qui n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec le texte du Manuel.\r\n\r\nLes conclusions que l\u2019on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur \u00c9pict\u00e8te, mais \u00e9galement pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caract\u00e9rise la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius commentant les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est la simplicit\u00e9 et l\u2019objectivit\u00e9. Il en conclut que, puisque l\u2019auteur du commentaire du De anima d\u2019Aristote attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Simplicius donne libre cours \u00e0 son interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut \u00eatre l\u2019auteur de ce commentaire.\r\n\r\nIl est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les \u0153uvres de logique, le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d\u2019occasions d\u2019introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va d\u00e9j\u00e0 autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du De anima, trait\u00e9 qui se pla\u00e7ait, dans le cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien, imm\u00e9diatement avant la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, et qui abordait des probl\u00e8mes m\u00e9taphysiques, la situation \u00e9tait toute diff\u00e9rente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes diff\u00e9raient largement de celles d\u2019Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver \u00e0 chaque pas l\u2019harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote revenait \u00e0 un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente diff\u00e9rence de m\u00e9thode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l\u2019\u00e2me que professaient Aristote et les n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nPlus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, quand on compare la position d\u2019un sto\u00efcien comme \u00c9pict\u00e8te concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d\u2019un n\u00e9oplatonicien, en l\u2019occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d\u2019autonomie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard du divin chez le philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien. Le sto\u00efcien, en s\u2019appuyant exclusivement sur la coh\u00e9rence de son syst\u00e8me et sur la force de sa raison, qu\u2019il croit apte \u00e0 diriger une vie vertueuse s\u2019il est d\u00e9cid\u00e9 \u00e0 la suivre, se consid\u00e8re ma\u00eetre autonome de sa relation \u00e0 Dieu. La question du salut de son \u00e2me apr\u00e8s sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui.\r\n\r\nIl en va autrement du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son \u00e2me, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement syst\u00e9matis\u00e9e et abstraite et d\u2019une vie vertueuse, de l\u2019aide des dieux, en partie obtenue gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des rites qu\u2019il croit transmis par des \u00ab r\u00e9v\u00e9lations \u00bb. Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses pa\u00efennes, ressemble finalement \u00e0 celle du christianisme recourant \u00e0 des rites et des sacrements. \u00c0 vrai dire, lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la th\u00e9urgie correspondant \u00e0 son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, \u00e0 une union mystique avec l\u2019Un ou l\u2019Ineffable.\r\n\r\nMais tandis que Plotin arrivait \u00e0 cette union par des moyens autonomes, les n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e0 partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d\u2019y arriver tout \u00e0 fait par eux-m\u00eames ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs \u00e2mes dans leur patrie sans l\u2019aide d\u2019un certain rituel. Il persiste n\u00e9anmoins de grandes diff\u00e9rences entre la \u00ab religion \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d\u2019autres religions qui ont la pr\u00e9tention de poss\u00e9der seules la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. La plus importante de ces diff\u00e9rences, \u00e0 mes yeux, consiste en la tol\u00e9rance et l\u2019ouverture d\u2019esprit vis-\u00e0-vis des religions \u00e9trang\u00e8res.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu comment les n\u00e9oplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des diff\u00e9rents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences \u00e9taient des manifestations d\u2019une m\u00eame divinit\u00e9, appropri\u00e9es \u00e0 la diversit\u00e9 des r\u00e9gions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux diff\u00e9rentes religions localement implant\u00e9es une sorte d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu\u2019on arrivait en qualit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9tranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux diff\u00e9rent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et m\u00eame s\u2019y conformer au moins ext\u00e9rieurement.\r\n\r\nCet esprit d\u2019ouverture et de tol\u00e9rance religieuse s\u2019est largement perdu avec la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 gr\u00e9co-romaine et nous fait tellement d\u00e9faut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi \u00c9pict\u00e8te, auraient certainement approuv\u00e9 les mots du pr\u00e9fet pa\u00efen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la d\u00e9cision de l\u2019empereur chr\u00e9tien de faire enlever de la salle du S\u00e9nat romain l\u2019autel de la Victoire :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Nous contemplons les m\u00eames astres, le ciel nous est commun, le m\u00eame monde nous enveloppe. Qu\u2019importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 ? \u00c0 un si grand myst\u00e8re on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. \u00bb [conclusion p. 208-211]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":945,"section_of":218,"pages":"183-211","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 143-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d’Épictète, qui compare la vie humaine à un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d’une interprétation allégorique de la parabole qui s’efforce de nous en faire découvrir le sens caché. En voici la traduction : "Or, il me semble qu’il a introduit un exemple imaginé d’une manière tout à fait appropriée. Car la mer, parce qu’elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agitées, qu’elle change d’une manière si variée, qu’elle étouffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l’analogie qu’elle présente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu’elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les âmes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d’Heimarmenê ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait être le dieu, lui qui, par ses prévoyantes pensées, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d’une manière adaptée au mérite (kat’ axian) de chacun, l’univers et la descente des âmes dans le devenir. L’entrée du navire au port, c’est la mise en place des âmes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c’est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendrées en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d’eau, c’est le soin des choses nécessaires à la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu’y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus nécessaire que l’eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l’on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-même l’exégèse d’une manière appropriée : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propriété, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont données par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres. Le principal, en effet, c’est d’être tendu et tourné perpétuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut même pas s’intéresser à ces choses, comme si elles étaient nécessaires de la même manière que la provision d’eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose véritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile à la vie." [introduction p. 143-144] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWgctr8ErscwqR3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"946","_score":null,"_source":{"id":946,"authors_free":[{"id":1413,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1414,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1415,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1416,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale","main_title":{"title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, qui compare la vie humaine \u00e0 un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation all\u00e9gorique de la parabole qui s\u2019efforce de nous en faire d\u00e9couvrir le sens cach\u00e9. En voici la traduction :\r\n\r\n \"Or, il me semble qu\u2019il a introduit un exemple imagin\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait appropri\u00e9e. Car la mer, parce qu\u2019elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agit\u00e9es, qu\u2019elle change d\u2019une mani\u00e8re si vari\u00e9e, qu\u2019elle \u00e9touffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l\u2019analogie qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu\u2019elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les \u00e2mes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d\u2019Heimarmen\u00ea ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait \u00eatre le dieu, lui qui, par ses pr\u00e9voyantes pens\u00e9es, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d\u2019une mani\u00e8re adapt\u00e9e au m\u00e9rite (kat\u2019 axian) de chacun, l\u2019univers et la descente des \u00e2mes dans le devenir.\r\n\r\n L\u2019entr\u00e9e du navire au port, c\u2019est la mise en place des \u00e2mes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c\u2019est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendr\u00e9es en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d\u2019eau, c\u2019est le soin des choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu\u2019y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus n\u00e9cessaire que l\u2019eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l\u2019on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-m\u00eame l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019une mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propri\u00e9t\u00e9, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont donn\u00e9es par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres.\r\n\r\n Le principal, en effet, c\u2019est d\u2019\u00eatre tendu et tourn\u00e9 perp\u00e9tuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut m\u00eame pas s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 ces choses, comme si elles \u00e9taient n\u00e9cessaires de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re que la provision d\u2019eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose v\u00e9ritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile \u00e0 la vie.\" [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UWgctr8ErscwqR3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":946,"section_of":218,"pages":"143-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 127-141 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan général du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte à la discipline du désir. Il invite, sous une forme imagée, à ne pas s’attacher aux personnes qui nous sont chères, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires. Dans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en présence d’une comparaison, parabole ou allégorie. Une allégorie est, pourrait-on dire, une métaphore prolongée. Les parties d’un ensemble structuré et cohérent de réalités ou d’événements (A), ici l’escale d’un navire dans un port, correspondent terme à terme aux parties d’un autre ensemble structuré de réalités ou d’événements (B), ici la vie humaine. L’auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre à son lecteur, que la conduite que l’on est obligé d’avoir dans l’ensemble B doit être analogue à celle qui nous semble nécessaire dans l’ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"947","_score":null,"_source":{"id":947,"authors_free":[{"id":1417,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1418,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1419,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1420,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet","main_title":{"title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"},"abstract":"Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte \u00e0 la discipline du d\u00e9sir. Il invite, sous une forme imag\u00e9e, \u00e0 ne pas s\u2019attacher aux personnes qui nous sont ch\u00e8res, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires.\r\n\r\nDans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en pr\u00e9sence d\u2019une comparaison, parabole ou all\u00e9gorie. Une all\u00e9gorie est, pourrait-on dire, une m\u00e9taphore prolong\u00e9e. Les parties d\u2019un ensemble structur\u00e9 et coh\u00e9rent de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (A), ici l\u2019escale d\u2019un navire dans un port, correspondent terme \u00e0 terme aux parties d\u2019un autre ensemble structur\u00e9 de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (B), ici la vie humaine. L\u2019auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre \u00e0 son lecteur, que la conduite que l\u2019on est oblig\u00e9 d\u2019avoir dans l\u2019ensemble B doit \u00eatre analogue \u00e0 celle qui nous semble n\u00e9cessaire dans l\u2019ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":947,"section_of":218,"pages":"127-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interprétation néoplatonicienne de « ce qui dépend de nous » |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 103-125 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or προαίρεσις), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of "what depends on us" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"948","_score":null,"_source":{"id":948,"authors_free":[{"id":1421,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1422,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1423,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1424,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of \"what depends on us\" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":948,"section_of":218,"pages":"103-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 1-19 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 97-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 5-28 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 29-47 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 49-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"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}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
Title | Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg |
Pages | 323-342 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es für ihn nicht förderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einführung handelt, die den Erwerb der bürgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Kommentierung des Handbüchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerlässlich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars über die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatonischen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erklärterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handbüchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Ausübung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegenüber dem Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen hätte, d.h. daß, bei aller Wichtigkeit und Unerlässlichkeit der Theurgie, auch für ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung bleibt. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"674","_score":null,"_source":{"id":674,"authors_free":[{"id":990,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":991,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":163,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kobusch, Theo","free_first_name":"Theo","free_last_name":"Kobusch","norm_person":{"id":163,"first_name":"Theo","last_name":"Kobusch","full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115417486","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":992,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie","main_title":{"title":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie"},"abstract":"Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es f\u00fcr ihn nicht f\u00f6r\u00adderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einf\u00fch\u00adrung handelt, die den Erwerb der b\u00fcrgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplato\u00adnischen Kommentierung des Handb\u00fcchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerl\u00e4sslich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars \u00fcber die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatoni\u00adschen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erkl\u00e4rterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handb\u00fcchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Aus\u00fcbung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte daf\u00fcr, da\u00df Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegen\u00fcber dem Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philo\u00adsophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen h\u00e4tte, d.h. da\u00df, bei aller Wich\u00adtigkeit und Unerl\u00e4sslichkeit der Theurgie, auch f\u00fcr ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Vorausset\u00adzung bleibt. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":163,"full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":674,"section_of":265,"pages":"323-342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kobusch\/Erler2002b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"\r\nDie Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelb\u00e4nde, Editionen, \u00dcbersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Arch\u00e4ologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschlie\u00dfung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":265,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen - Leipzig","publisher":"Saur","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 107-126 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
Translator(s) |
The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
Pages | 75-90 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
Translator(s) |
Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty. Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"929","_score":null,"_source":{"id":929,"authors_free":[{"id":1373,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1374,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1832,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"},"abstract":"Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere\u2014whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle\u2019s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings\u2014and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus\u2019 assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":929,"section_of":31,"pages":"75-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":31,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 171-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life. Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function. The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover. Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"943","_score":null,"_source":{"id":943,"authors_free":[{"id":1404,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r,","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1405,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1406,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"},"abstract":"After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus\u2019 doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle\u2019s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.\r\n\r\nHere, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus\u2019 retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus\u2019 Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.\r\n\r\nThe only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration\u2014which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time\u2014the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, refers to Eudemus\u2019 Physics far more often than to Theophrastus\u2019 writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":943,"section_of":287,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 127-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"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}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece |
Pages | 173-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method of the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with some justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on the theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these terms refer to the ‘early’ stages of Greek culture when w'riting found its way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis cuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around 530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period is to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con scious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on previous attempts at exegesis. [p. 174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"974","_score":null,"_source":{"id":974,"authors_free":[{"id":1471,"entry_id":974,"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}},{"id":1472,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1473,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations","main_title":{"title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"},"abstract":"This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method \r\nof the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with \r\nsome justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on \r\nthe theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these \r\nterms refer to the \u2018early\u2019 stages of Greek culture when w'riting found \r\nits way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis\u00ad\r\ncuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around \r\n530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period \r\nis to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con\u00ad\r\nscious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on \r\nprevious attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":974,"section_of":293,"pages":"173-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":293,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Foley\/Worthington2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung |
Pages | 201-251 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Editor(s) | Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian |
Translator(s) |
The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1286","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1286,"authors_free":[{"id":1875,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2339,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2340,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Schulze","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1286,"section_of":267,"pages":"201-251","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung |
Pages | 183-199 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian |
Translator(s) |
Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird für uns vom ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an faßbar und verdankt seine Entstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, daß von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erklärung der Texte ihrer Schulgründer Platon, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erklärungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, daß er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommentar zu einem stoischen Text überliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handbüchlein' des Epiktet, der aber natürlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoischen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":521,"authors_free":[{"id":727,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1996,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1997,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Schulze","free_last_name":"Christian","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike","main_title":{"title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike"},"abstract":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird f\u00fcr uns vom ers\u00adten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an fa\u00dfbar und verdankt seine Ent\u00adstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, da\u00df von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erkl\u00e4rung der Texte ihrer Schulgr\u00fcnder Pla\u00adton, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erkl\u00e4rungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, da\u00df er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommen\u00adtar zu einem stoischen Text \u00fcberliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handb\u00fcchlein' des Epiktet, der aber nat\u00fcrlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoi\u00adschen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":521,"section_of":267,"pages":"183-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century |
Pages | 31-56 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Haas, Frans A. J. de |
Editor(s) | Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H. |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This book explores the dynamics of the commentary and textbook traditions in Aristotelian natural philosophy under the headings of doctrine, method, and scientific and social status. It enquires what the evolution of the Aristotelian commentary tradition can tell us about the character of natural philosophy as a pedagogical tool, as a scientific enterprise, and as a background to modern scientific thought. In a unique attempt to cut old-fashioned historiographic divisions, it brings together scholars of ancient, medieval, Renaissance and seventeenth-century philosophy. The book covers a remarkably broad range of topics: it starts with the first Greek commentators and ends with Leibniz. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum |
Pages | 123-160 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hartmann, Udo |
Editor(s) | Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas |
Translator(s) |
Der Exkurs über Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der athenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die kulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, daß es im Römischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis über die Renaissance der Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil idealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes rühmten sowohl Perser als auch Römer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der anderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schließlich ver deutlicht er, daß sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt für Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem Römischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":582,"authors_free":[{"id":825,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2009,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":171,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuol, Monika","free_first_name":"Monika","free_last_name":"Schuol","norm_person":{"id":171,"first_name":"Monika","last_name":"Schuol","full_name":"Schuol, Monika","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124269826","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2010,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2011,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":172,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luther, Andreas ","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Luther","norm_person":{"id":172,"first_name":"Luther","last_name":"Andreas","full_name":"Luther, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133295524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden","main_title":{"title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"},"abstract":"Der Exkurs \u00fcber Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der \r\nathenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die \r\nkulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, \r\nda\u00df es im R\u00f6mischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis \u00fcber die Renaissance \r\nder Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil \r\nidealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes r\u00fchmten sowohl \r\nPerser als auch R\u00f6mer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der \r\nanderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schlie\u00dflich ver\u00ad\r\ndeutlicht er, da\u00df sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt \r\nf\u00fcr Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem R\u00f6mischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":171,"full_name":"Schuol, Monika","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":172,"full_name":"Luther, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":582,"section_of":380,"pages":"123-160","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":380,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuol\/Hartmann\/Luther2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Aus dem Inhalt: J. Wieseh\u00f6fer: Pl\u00f6n, Innsbruck, Berlin \u2026 Der \u201eOrientkreis\u201c oder das Wandern zwischen zwei Welten \u2015 A. Demandt: Alexander im Islam \u2015 E. Baltrusch: Zwischen Autonomie und Repression: Perspektiven und Grenzen einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen j\u00fcdischen Gemeinden und hellenistischem Staat \u2015 A. Gebhardt: Numismatische Beitr\u00e4ge zur sp\u00e4tdomitianischen Ostpolitik \u2013 Vorbereitungen eines Partherkrieges? \u2015 B. Gufler: Orientalische Wurzeln griechischer Gorgo-Darstellungen \u2015 P. Haider: Glaubensvorstellungen in Heliopolis \/ Baalbek in neuer Sicht \u2015 U. Hartmann: Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden \u2015 U. Hartmann \/ A. Luther: M\u00fcnzen des hatrenischen Herrn wrwd (Worod) \u2015 I. Huber: Der Perser-Nomos des Timotheos \u2013 Zwischen Unterhaltungsliteratur und politischer Propaganda \u2015 P. Huyse: Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch\/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen \u2015 H. Klinkott: Die Funktion des Apadana am Beispiel der Gr\u00fcndungsurkunde von Susa \u2015 A. Luther: Zwietracht am Flu\u00df Tanais: Nachrichten \u00fcber das Bosporanische Reich bei Horaz? \u2015 U. Scharrer: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Tadmor im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. \u2015 M. Schuol: Zur \u00dcberlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen \u2015 S. Stark: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Mittel- und Zentralasien: Nomadische Adaptionsstrategien am Fallbeispiel der Altt\u00fcrken. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":380,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Aquinas and the Platonists |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach |
Pages | 279-324 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hankey, Wayne J. |
Editor(s) | Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. |
Translator(s) |
As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas’ relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great. In fact, Thomas’ own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato’s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas’ relation to Platonism. Getting hold of Thomas’s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle’s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases. The principal problems with Henle’s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas’ representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition. Henle’s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in “a series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it” (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a “philosophical teaching” from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of “Platonism” and of Thomas’ Platonism. As a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae. This via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive—positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato’s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato’s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient. In the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato’s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas’ approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues. The substance of Thomas’ own thinking shows almost no development—except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato’s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato’s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation. [introduction p. 1-3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1348","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1348,"authors_free":[{"id":2003,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":167,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","free_first_name":"Wayne J.","free_last_name":"Hankey","norm_person":{"id":167,"first_name":" Wayne J.","last_name":"Hankey","full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054015821","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2361,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":450,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gersh, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Gersh","norm_person":{"id":450,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Gersh","full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172508460","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2362,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":451,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","free_first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","free_last_name":"Hoenen","norm_person":{"id":451,"first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","last_name":"Hoenen","full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172140307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and the Platonists","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and the Platonists"},"abstract":"As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Thomas\u2019 own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato\u2019s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nGetting hold of Thomas\u2019s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle\u2019s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases.\r\n\r\nThe principal problems with Henle\u2019s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas\u2019 representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition.\r\n\r\nHenle\u2019s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in \u201ca series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it\u201d (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a \u201cphilosophical teaching\u201d from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of \u201cPlatonism\u201d and of Thomas\u2019 Platonism.\r\n\r\nAs a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae.\r\n\r\nThis via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive\u2014positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato\u2019s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato\u2019s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient.\r\n\r\nIn the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato\u2019s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas\u2019 approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues.\r\n\r\nThe substance of Thomas\u2019 own thinking shows almost no development\u2014except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato\u2019s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato\u2019s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation.\r\n[introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":450,"full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":451,"full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1348,"section_of":327,"pages":"279-324","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gersh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Str\u00f6mungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefa\u00dft werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beitr\u00e4ge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erl\u00e4utern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Anspr\u00fcche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Das Werk enth\u00e4lt Beitr\u00e4ge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":327,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Mélanges Gilbert Dagron |
Pages | 21-35 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Beauchamp, Joëlle |
Editor(s) | Déroche, Vincent |
Translator(s) |
The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1457","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1457,"authors_free":[{"id":2490,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":503,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","free_first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","free_last_name":"Beauchamp","norm_person":{"id":503,"first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","last_name":"Beauchamp","full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2491,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":504,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","free_first_name":"Vincent","free_last_name":"D\u00e9roche","norm_person":{"id":504,"first_name":"Vincent","last_name":"D\u00e9roche","full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033332305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":503,"full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":504,"full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1457,"section_of":280,"pages":"21-35","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":280,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dagron2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":280,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","series":"Travaux et m\u00e9moires \/ Coll\u00e8ge de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 43-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis. Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte. Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht. Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1198,"authors_free":[{"id":1768,"entry_id":1198,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"},"abstract":"Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E w\u00e4hrend der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn \u00fcberhaupt. F\u00fcr die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.\r\n\r\nDoch gibt es, auch wenn die sp\u00e4tere Geschichte des Paris. sehr r\u00e4tselhaft ist, gute Gr\u00fcnde anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili \"Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca\" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1\u201376) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.\r\n\r\nEs liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librer\u00eda Privata geh\u00f6rte: \"It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492).\" Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umst\u00e4nden die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. M\u00f6glicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.\r\n\r\nDie sp\u00e4tere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1198,"section_of":10,"pages":"43-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
Title | §2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 141-159 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1199","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1199,"authors_free":[{"id":1770,"entry_id":1199,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)","main_title":{"title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1199,"section_of":10,"pages":"141-159","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
Title | κ und Nikephoros Chumnos |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 182-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1200,"authors_free":[{"id":1772,"entry_id":1200,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos","main_title":{"title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1200,"section_of":10,"pages":"182-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
Title | "Simplikios" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike |
Pages | 578-580 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Schneider, Helmuth , Cancik, Hubert |
Translator(s) |
Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag über Simplikios in "Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike". |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"642","_score":null,"_source":{"id":642,"authors_free":[{"id":915,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":916,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":161,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schneider, Helmuth","free_first_name":"Helmuth","free_last_name":"Schneider","norm_person":{"id":161,"first_name":"Helmuth ","last_name":"Schneider","full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133788628","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":917,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":162,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cancik, Hubert","free_first_name":"Hubert","free_last_name":"Cancik","norm_person":{"id":162,"first_name":"Hubert ","last_name":"Cancik","full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119546124","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag \u00fcber Simplikios in \"Der neue Pauly: Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike\".","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":161,"full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":162,"full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":642,"section_of":1586,"pages":"578-580","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1586,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cancik_Schneider_2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"B\u00e4nde 1-12\/II, Altertum - Nachweis der pr\u00e4genden Einfl\u00fcsse des Orients auf die griechisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer F\u00fclle von Abbildungen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1586,"pubplace":"Stuttgart; Weimar","publisher":"J. B. Metzler","series":"","volume":"Band 11 Sam-Tal","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 315-350 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1. Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander. Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":2131,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"},"abstract":"Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Texttr\u00e4ger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu ber\u00fccksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verst\u00e4ndnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Haupttr\u00e4gern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.\r\n\r\nEinige Aspekte der indirekten \u00dcberlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit h\u00e4ngt die syrisch-arabische \u00dcbersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebr\u00e4ische \u00dcbertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskr\u00e4ftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.\r\n\r\nNoch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbez\u00fcglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zur\u00fcck, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, n\u00e4mlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vin\u00e4. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1382,"section_of":10,"pages":"315-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
Title | Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Aspects of Avicenna |
Pages | 73-130 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Stone, Abraham D. |
Editor(s) | Wisnovsky, Robert |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle’s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7—a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all—and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna’s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa’ II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa’, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle. Both Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology—“corporeal form,” “indeterminate dimensions,” “deviation”—that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight). This resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail. The abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form. Simplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form “deviates” from its intelligible archetype—i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter. Both solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius’ solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna’s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance. [conclusion p. 113-114] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1425","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1425,"authors_free":[{"id":2236,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":409,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","free_first_name":" Abraham D.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":409,"first_name":" Abraham D.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2449,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":483,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","free_first_name":"Robert","free_last_name":"Wisnovsky","norm_person":{"id":483,"first_name":"Robert","last_name":"Wisnovsky","full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance"},"abstract":"Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle\u2019s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7\u2014a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all\u2014and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna\u2019s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa\u2019 II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa\u2019, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle.\r\n\r\nBoth Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology\u2014\u201ccorporeal form,\u201d \u201cindeterminate dimensions,\u201d \u201cdeviation\u201d\u2014that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight).\r\n\r\nThis resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail.\r\n\r\nThe abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form \u201cdeviates\u201d from its intelligible archetype\u2014i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter.\r\n\r\nBoth solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius\u2019 solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna\u2019s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance.\r\n[conclusion p. 113-114]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":409,"full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":483,"full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1425,"section_of":1452,"pages":"73-130","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1452,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aspects of Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Ab\u016b \u02bfAl\u012b al-\u1e24usain ibn \u02bfAbd All\u0101h ibn S\u012bn\u0101 (born before 370 AH\/980 CE-died 428 AH\/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. \r\nIt seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna\u2019s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna\u2019s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life. \r\nSecond, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction\/conclusion]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wL5bMZgjyTXYzBp","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1452,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Markus Wiener Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1425,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Princeton papers, interdisciplinary journal of Middle Eastern studies","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"73-130"}},"sort":[2001]}
Title | Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999 |
Pages | 355-376 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus’s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories ΠΟΤE and ΠΟΥ, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"679","_score":null,"_source":{"id":679,"authors_free":[{"id":1002,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1003,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"},"abstract":"Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus\u2019s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E and \u03a0\u039f\u03a5, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":679,"section_of":269,"pages":"355-376","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}
Title | La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink |
Pages | 459-489 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Segonds, A. Ph. , Steel, Carlos , Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) , Luna, Concetta (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
L'analyse des textes montre que dans l’œuvre de Simplicius s'établit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire à la Physique et la prière finale du Commentaire au De caelo. Selon l’ordre néoplatonicien de lecture des traités d'Aristote, la Physique précède le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgré un ordre chronologique de composition inverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-à-dire par une sorte de continuité intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - l’absence d’une prière à la fin du Commentaire à la Physique, en considérant que la prière finale de l'In De caelo couronne à la fois ces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une polémique contre l'impiété de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'exégète - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu’à une forme d'union avec le corps céleste et avec le Démiurge, c’est-à-dire jusqu'à une « sympathie » donatrice de félicité? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos évoqué dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Catégories, tandis qu'un fil thématique précis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"681","_score":null,"_source":{"id":681,"authors_free":[{"id":1009,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1010,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":196,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","free_first_name":"A. Ph. ","free_last_name":"Segonds","norm_person":{"id":196,"first_name":"A. Ph. ","last_name":"Segonds","full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031742743","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2039,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2395,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":461,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.)","free_first_name":"A. F.","free_last_name":"Mettraux","norm_person":{"id":461,"first_name":"A. F.","last_name":"Mettraux","full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2396,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'analyse des textes montre que dans l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius s'\u00e9tablit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique et la pri\u00e8re finale du Commentaire au \r\nDe caelo. Selon l\u2019ordre n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des trait\u00e9s d'Aristote, la Physique pr\u00e9c\u00e8de le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgr\u00e9 un ordre chronologique de composition in\u00adverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-\u00e0-dire par une sorte de continuit\u00e9 intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - \r\nl\u2019absence d\u2019une pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin du Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, en consid\u00e9rant que la pri\u00e8re finale de l'In De caelo couronne \u00e0 la fois \r\nces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une pol\u00e9mique contre l'impi\u00e9t\u00e9 de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8te - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu\u2019\u00e0 une forme d'union avec le corps c\u00e9leste et avec le D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire jusqu'\u00e0 une \r\n\u00ab sympathie \u00bb donatrice de f\u00e9licit\u00e9? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos \u00e9voqu\u00e9 dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories, tandis qu'un fil th\u00e9matique pr\u00e9cis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":196,"full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":461,"full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":681,"section_of":369,"pages":"459-489","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":369,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Proclus et la th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Segonds2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"In his Platonic Theology, Proclus offers a systematic exposition of the theology of Plato. Integrating within the \u2018scienti-fic\u2019 framework of the Parmenides all the theological doctrines which are scattered throughout the Plato\u2019s dialogues, Proclus develops the Platonic doctrines on the One, the gods and the hierarchical procession of reality.\r\n\r\nThe present volume, which celebrates the completion of the critical edition of Proclus\u2019 Platonic Theology by H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink (+), contains thirty-one contributions by leading scholars in the field of Neoplatonic studies. They present their views on the organisation and principles of Proclus\u2019 theology, on the hermeneutics of Platonic dialogues, on the antecedents of this theological synthesis, and on its posterity, from Proclus\u2019 immediate successors through the Byzantine, Arabic and Latin Middle Ages.\r\n\r\nThis monumental volume, which is the result of three decades of dedicated scholarly research on the philosophy of Proclus, will stand for many years as an indispensable guide for all those interested in Neoplatonic studies. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SbKzMkxqkUtsN6U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":369,"pubplace":"Leuven - Paris","publisher":"Leuven University Press - Paris Les Belles Lettres","series":"Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series 1","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}
Title | Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2 |
Pages | 601-632 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Prato, Giancarlo |
Translator(s) |
Quels sont donc les maigres résultats de notre enquête ? On déduit d’un cursus d’études tardo-antique des Ve et VIe siècles la nécessaire existence de riches bibliothèques dont l’histoire ultérieure n’est qu’un tissu d’hypothèses ou de questions nécessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu’à la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe siècle. Les livres utilisés, conservés ou réalisés dans ces milieux néoplatoniciens devaient probablement – pour les œuvres les plus prolixes du moins – être de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, évoqués par Monsieur Crisci pour une période il est vrai postérieure de plusieurs décennies. On a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le célèbre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), écrit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, décrit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stupéfiantes. Il est daté en général du VIe ou du VIIe siècle, et Turner, après Edgar Lobel, le situe plutôt vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C’est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette époque, d’un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera – me suggère Jean Irigoin – l’exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Cratévas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d’une chaîne, un autre exemple postérieur étant le Venetus A de l’Iliade, Marc. gr. 454). La mise en pages attestée dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu après 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d’Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l’Isagogè de Porphyre et le début des Catégories, une compilation de la littérature exégétique alexandrine et athénienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie çà et là de nouveautés postérieures au VIe siècle. Le module de l’écriture adopté par Aréthas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l’Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, également illustrée (et de manière extrême) dans un autre contexte et à une tout autre époque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d’Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-être sur la voie du type d’écriture utilisé pour la copie des œuvres immenses d’un Proclus, d’un Damascius ou d’un Simplicius. On peut imaginer que les livres de l’école néoplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format déjà évoqués, et dont l’usage est attesté pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S’ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l’école (c’est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur Hésiode et sur Orphée). S’ils contenaient une œuvre exégétique « moderne » (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d’écritures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant à des centaines de pages dans les éditions modernes ? Mais ce n’est là, bien sûr, qu’une suggestion, ou plutôt une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csXi7Zihz5LcEep |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"711","_score":null,"_source":{"id":711,"authors_free":[{"id":1060,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1061,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":195,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","free_first_name":"Giancarlo","free_last_name":"Prato","norm_person":{"id":195,"first_name":"Giancarlo","last_name":"Prato","full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143872176","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"Quels sont donc les maigres r\u00e9sultats de notre enqu\u00eate ? On d\u00e9duit d\u2019un cursus d\u2019\u00e9tudes tardo-antique des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles la n\u00e9cessaire existence de riches biblioth\u00e8ques dont l\u2019histoire ult\u00e9rieure n\u2019est qu\u2019un tissu d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses ou de questions n\u00e9cessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe si\u00e8cle. Les livres utilis\u00e9s, conserv\u00e9s ou r\u00e9alis\u00e9s dans ces milieux n\u00e9oplatoniciens devaient probablement \u2013 pour les \u0153uvres les plus prolixes du moins \u2013 \u00eatre de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, \u00e9voqu\u00e9s par Monsieur Crisci pour une p\u00e9riode il est vrai post\u00e9rieure de plusieurs d\u00e9cennies.\r\n\r\nOn a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), \u00e9crit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, d\u00e9crit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stup\u00e9fiantes. Il est dat\u00e9 en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du VIe ou du VIIe si\u00e8cle, et Turner, apr\u00e8s Edgar Lobel, le situe plut\u00f4t vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C\u2019est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette \u00e9poque, d\u2019un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera \u2013 me sugg\u00e8re Jean Irigoin \u2013 l\u2019exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Crat\u00e9vas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d\u2019une cha\u00eene, un autre exemple post\u00e9rieur \u00e9tant le Venetus A de l\u2019Iliade, Marc. gr. 454).\r\n\r\nLa mise en pages attest\u00e9e dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu apr\u00e8s 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d\u2019Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l\u2019Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre et le d\u00e9but des Cat\u00e9gories, une compilation de la litt\u00e9rature ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique alexandrine et ath\u00e9nienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie \u00e7\u00e0 et l\u00e0 de nouveaut\u00e9s post\u00e9rieures au VIe si\u00e8cle. Le module de l\u2019\u00e9criture adopt\u00e9 par Ar\u00e9thas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l\u2019Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, \u00e9galement illustr\u00e9e (et de mani\u00e8re extr\u00eame) dans un autre contexte et \u00e0 une tout autre \u00e9poque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d\u2019Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-\u00eatre sur la voie du type d\u2019\u00e9criture utilis\u00e9 pour la copie des \u0153uvres immenses d\u2019un Proclus, d\u2019un Damascius ou d\u2019un Simplicius.\r\n\r\nOn peut imaginer que les livres de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9voqu\u00e9s, et dont l\u2019usage est attest\u00e9 pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S\u2019ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l\u2019\u00e9cole (c\u2019est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur H\u00e9siode et sur Orph\u00e9e). S\u2019ils contenaient une \u0153uvre ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique \u00ab moderne \u00bb (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d\u2019\u00e9critures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant \u00e0 des centaines de pages dans les \u00e9ditions modernes ? Mais ce n\u2019est l\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, qu\u2019une suggestion, ou plut\u00f4t une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csXi7Zihz5LcEep","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":195,"full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":711,"section_of":158,"pages":"601-632","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":158,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Prato2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvRD4rywoYZSgSs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":158,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"Gonnelli","series":"Papyrologica Florentina","volume":"31","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}
Title | The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society |
Pages | 183-203 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sluiter, Ineke |
Editor(s) | Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk |
Translator(s) |
In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge. Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier). There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6IXo92il3CT8q6x |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2000]}
Title | Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999 |
Pages | 377-386 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dalimier, Catherine |
Editor(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Translator(s) |
Cette étude vise à souligner – si nous n’en étions pas encore persuadés – toute la partialité de commentateurs qui se présentent pourtant comme les dépositaires soigneux d’une tradition. Elle s’applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Traité sur le ciel d’Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs antérieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains développements polémiques de ces commentateurs sont théologiquement motivés, par exemple leurs développements sur l’existence du cinquième élément et ceux qui concernent l’origine de l’univers ; mais, d’une façon plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur stratégie m’apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles où ils reformulent les raisonnements élaborés par Aristote. Cette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les préceptes donnés dans les ouvrages logiques d’Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprimés en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les prémisses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articulé par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques à celles d’Aristote, ni même présentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Traité sur le ciel, le caractère répétitif, fastidieux même de ces reformulations, accentué par la structure en abîme de ce traité particulier, la reprise de thèses d’un livre à l’autre, et la circularité de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n’y voir qu’une démonstration scolaire de virtuosité technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio à valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les présupposés théologiques et épistémiques du commentateur, présupposés particulièrement importants, s’agissant de la science difficile à classer qu’était l’astronomie dans l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 377-378] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1288","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1288,"authors_free":[{"id":1877,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":61,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Dalimier","norm_person":{"id":61,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Dalimier","full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2337,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Cette \u00e9tude vise \u00e0 souligner \u2013 si nous n\u2019en \u00e9tions pas encore persuad\u00e9s \u2013 toute la partialit\u00e9 de commentateurs qui se pr\u00e9sentent pourtant comme les d\u00e9positaires soigneux d\u2019une tradition. Elle s\u2019applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel d\u2019Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs ant\u00e9rieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains d\u00e9veloppements pol\u00e9miques de ces commentateurs sont th\u00e9ologiquement motiv\u00e9s, par exemple leurs d\u00e9veloppements sur l\u2019existence du cinqui\u00e8me \u00e9l\u00e9ment et ceux qui concernent l\u2019origine de l\u2019univers ; mais, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur strat\u00e9gie m\u2019apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles o\u00f9 ils reformulent les raisonnements \u00e9labor\u00e9s par Aristote.\r\n\r\nCette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les pr\u00e9ceptes donn\u00e9s dans les ouvrages logiques d\u2019Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprim\u00e9s en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les pr\u00e9misses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articul\u00e9 par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques \u00e0 celles d\u2019Aristote, ni m\u00eame pr\u00e9sentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel, le caract\u00e8re r\u00e9p\u00e9titif, fastidieux m\u00eame de ces reformulations, accentu\u00e9 par la structure en ab\u00eeme de ce trait\u00e9 particulier, la reprise de th\u00e8ses d\u2019un livre \u00e0 l\u2019autre, et la circularit\u00e9 de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n\u2019y voir qu\u2019une d\u00e9monstration scolaire de virtuosit\u00e9 technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio \u00e0 valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s th\u00e9ologiques et \u00e9pist\u00e9miques du commentateur, pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s particuli\u00e8rement importants, s\u2019agissant de la science difficile \u00e0 classer qu\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019astronomie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 377-378]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":61,"full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1288,"section_of":269,"pages":"377-386","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1288,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens-Occidens","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"77-94"}},"sort":[2000]}
Title | An Introduction to Aspasius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics |
Pages | 1-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Alberti, Antonina , Sharples, Robert W. |
Translator(s) |
The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius’ contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle’s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"633","_score":null,"_source":{"id":633,"authors_free":[{"id":893,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":894,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":506,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alberti, Antonina","free_first_name":"Antonina","free_last_name":"Alberti","norm_person":{"id":506,"first_name":"Antonina","last_name":"Alberti","full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":895,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Introduction to Aspasius","main_title":{"title":"An Introduction to Aspasius"},"abstract":"The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius\u2019 contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle\u2019s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":506,"full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":633,"section_of":286,"pages":"1-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":286,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Alberti_Sharples_1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This book comprises essays on the nature of Aspasius\u2019 commentary, his interpretation of Aristotle, and his own place in the history of thought. The contributions are in English or Italian.\r\n\r\nAspasius\u2019 commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is the earliest ancient commentary on Aristotle of which extensive parts survive in their original form. It is important both for the history of commentary as a genre and for the history of philosophical thought in the first two centuries A.D.; it is also still valuable as what its author intended it to be, an aid in interpreting the Ethics. All three aspects are explored by the essays.\r\n\r\nThe book is not formally a commentary on Aspasius\u2019 commentary; but between them the essays consider the interpretation of numerous problematic or significant passages. Full indices will enable readers quickly to locate discussion of particular parts of Aspasius\u2019 work. This volume of essays will form a natural complement to the first ever translation of Aspasius\u2019 commentary into any modern language, currently in preparation by Paul Mercken.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sA4gaXkwHHMBbmx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":286,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès |
Pages | 209-248 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe |
Translator(s) |
Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”. Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition : "[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]". Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”. L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein). Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction. Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”). La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique. Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ? La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione. Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier |
Pages | 93-103 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Thiel, Rainer |
Editor(s) | Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of "purifications" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"470","_score":null,"_source":{"id":470,"authors_free":[{"id":633,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":333,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thiel, Rainer","free_first_name":"Rainer","free_last_name":"Thiel","norm_person":{"id":333,"first_name":"Rainer","last_name":"Thiel","full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12885054X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":634,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":635,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"},"abstract":"The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of \"purifications\" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":470,"section_of":324,"pages":"93-103","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle |
Pages | 48-75 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Blackwell, Constance , Kusukawa, Sachiko |
Translator(s) |
My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance scholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with a few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the first Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":551,"authors_free":[{"id":775,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2098,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2099,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":79,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","free_first_name":"Sachiko","free_last_name":"Kusukawa","norm_person":{"id":79,"first_name":"Sachiko","last_name":"Kusukawa","full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158263708","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan","main_title":{"title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"},"abstract":"My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance \r\nscholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with \r\na few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the \r\nfirst Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":79,"full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":551,"section_of":261,"pages":"48-75","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":261,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blackwell\/Kusukawa1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This volume offers an important re-evaluation of early modern philosophy. It takes issue with the received notion of a \u2019revolution\u2019 in philosophical thought in the 17th-century, making the case for treating the 16th and 17th centuries together. Taking up Charles Schmitt\u2019s formulation of the many \u2019Aristotelianisms\u2019 of the period, the papers bring out the variety and richness of the approaches to Aristotle, rather than treating his as a homogeneous system of thought. Based on much new research, they provide case studies of how philosophers used, developed, and reacted to the framework of Aristotelian logic, categories and distinctions, and demonstrate that Aristotelianism possessed both the flexibility and the dynamism to exert a continuing impact - even among such noted \u2019anti-Aristotelians\u2019 as Descartes and Hobbes. This constant engagement can indeed be termed \u2019conversations with Aristotle\u2019.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/In5fPTWQezWnPei","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":261,"pubplace":"Aldershot \u2013 Hants, U.K. \u2013 Brookfield, Vt.","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Pages | 169-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Burkert, Walter |
Editor(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae') |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier |
Pages | 105-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Erler, Michael |
Editor(s) | Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios’ Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert präzise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung für den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als propädeutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zurückhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie — Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Spätantike, 105-22) - auch gestützt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - für Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: "eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulmäßiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium") und gewinnt hieraus für Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine überzeugende Erklärung für das Phänomen, daß stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei Büchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allmählichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis rückt, vermag er verständlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erklären vermochte. In der ersten Werkhälfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zurückgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als "praeparatio platonica" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als propädeutischer Vorübung gibt es aber naturgemäß auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1519,"authors_free":[{"id":2635,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2636,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2637,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')","main_title":{"title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"},"abstract":" Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert pr\u00e4zise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung f\u00fcr den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als prop\u00e4deutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zur\u00fcckhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie \u2014 Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Sp\u00e4tantike, 105-22) - auch gest\u00fctzt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - f\u00fcr Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: \"eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulm\u00e4\u00dfiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium\") und gewinnt hieraus f\u00fcr Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine \u00fcberzeugende Erkl\u00e4rung f\u00fcr das Ph\u00e4nomen, da\u00df stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei B\u00fcchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allm\u00e4hlichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis r\u00fcckt, vermag er verst\u00e4ndlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erkl\u00e4ren vermochte. In der ersten Werkh\u00e4lfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zur\u00fcckgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als \"praeparatio platonica\" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als prop\u00e4deutischer Vor\u00fcbung gibt es aber naturgem\u00e4\u00df auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1519,"section_of":324,"pages":"105-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps vécu, temps pensé |
Pages | 223-234 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise , Lozachmeur, Hélène |
Translator(s) |
Cette enquête rapide a fait apparaître cinq thèses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure confère l’unité à ce qu’elle rassemble, et le fait participer, à son niveau, de l’Un lui-même ; 2. le temps, image de l’éternité (Platon), est l ’une des « mesures rassemblantes » qui sauvent le sensible du désastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la « mesure de l’extension (paratasis) de l’être » ; 3. le temps est une quantité continue (Aristote), et il est mesuré par des mesures naturelles intrinsèques ; 4. la catégorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantité, est définie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-même, ou à ses « mesures naturelles » ; 5. ainsi est pensée la datation d ’un événement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les événements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du Péloponnèse ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"677","_score":null,"_source":{"id":677,"authors_free":[{"id":997,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":998,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":190,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise","free_last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","norm_person":{"id":190,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise ","last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138558841","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":999,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":191,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_last_name":"Lozachmeur","norm_person":{"id":191,"first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","last_name":"Lozachmeur","full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cette enqu\u00eate rapide a fait appara\u00eetre cinq th\u00e8ses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure conf\u00e8re l\u2019unit\u00e9 \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elle rassemble, et le fait participer, \u00e0 son niveau, de l\u2019Un lui-m\u00eame ; 2. le temps, image de l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (Platon), est l \u2019une des \u00ab mesures rassemblantes \u00bb qui sauvent le sensible du d\u00e9sastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la \u00ab mesure de l\u2019extension (paratasis) de l\u2019\u00eatre \u00bb ; 3. le temps est une quantit\u00e9 continue (Aristote), et il est mesur\u00e9 par des mesures naturelles intrins\u00e8ques ; 4. la cat\u00e9gorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantit\u00e9, est d\u00e9finie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-m\u00eame, ou \u00e0 ses \u00ab mesures naturelles \u00bb ; 5. ainsi est pens\u00e9e la datation d \u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du P\u00e9loponn\u00e8se ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":190,"full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":191,"full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":677,"section_of":366,"pages":"223-234","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps v\u00e9cu, temps pens\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Briquel-Chatonnet1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5BD9RWhwMU84oxi","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":366,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Maisonneuve","series":"Antiquit\u00e9s s\u00e9mitiques","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Entrer en matière. Les prologues |
Pages | 209-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Dubois, Jean-Daniel , Roussel, Bernard |
Translator(s) |
La philosophie néoplatonicienne a développé une doctrine de la relation pédagogique entre le Maître (image visible du Bien) et les étudiants (âmes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la définition même de la philosophie comme « assimilation à Dieu », et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'exégèse et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du « prologue » s*entend en trois sens 1) la représentation de la philosophie comme unité organique assigne à la logique aristotélicienne un statut de « commencement », à titre de « partie instrumentale » ; et le traité des Catégories est, à l'intérieur de cette « partie instrumentale », et au début du cursus néoplatonicien des études, le « proème » delà logique et de la philosophie tout entière ; 2) il existe d'autre part un véritable « genre littéraire » des introductions exégétiques, caractérisé par des schémas scolastiques de questions préalables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'emboîtement de plusieurs introductions : à la philosophie en général, à la philosophie d'Aristote, à la philosophie de Platon, à chaque œuvre particulière de Porphyre (Isagogè), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque œuvre singulière, les prologues exégétiques (et les commentaires eux-mêmes) peuvent comporter une description ou une légitimation du prologue de l'œuvre commentée : c'est le cas pour le traité aristotélicien des Catégories. L'application de critères rhétoriques d'origine platonicienne conduit à s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'œuvre commentée avec l'œuvre elle-même envisagée comme totalité organique. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qogll7IhtIDqqda |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"685","_score":null,"_source":{"id":685,"authors_free":[{"id":1016,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1017,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":188,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel","free_first_name":"Jean-Daniel","free_last_name":"Dubois","norm_person":{"id":188,"first_name":"Jean-Daniel ","last_name":"Dubois","full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104137304X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1018,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":189,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roussel, Bernard","free_first_name":"Bernard","free_last_name":"Roussel","norm_person":{"id":189,"first_name":"Bernard ","last_name":"Roussel","full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032386932","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne","main_title":{"title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"},"abstract":"La philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 une doctrine de la relation p\u00e9dagogique entre le Ma\u00eetre (image visible du Bien) et les \u00e9tudiants (\u00e2mes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la d\u00e9finition m\u00eame de la philosophie comme \u00ab assimilation \u00e0 Dieu \u00bb, et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du \u00ab prologue \u00bb s*entend en trois sens 1) la repr\u00e9sentation de la philosophie comme unit\u00e9 organique assigne \u00e0 la logique aristot\u00e9licienne un statut de \u00ab commencement \u00bb, \u00e0 titre de \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb ; et le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories est, \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de cette \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb, et au d\u00e9but du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien des \u00e9tudes, le \u00ab pro\u00e8me \u00bb del\u00e0 logique et de la philosophie tout enti\u00e8re ; 2) il existe d'autre part un v\u00e9ritable \u00ab genre litt\u00e9raire \u00bb des introductions ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques, caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par des sch\u00e9mas scolastiques de questions pr\u00e9alables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'embo\u00eetement de plusieurs introductions : \u00e0 la philosophie en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, \u00e0 la philosophie d'Aristote, \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon, \u00e0 chaque \u0153uvre particuli\u00e8re de Porphyre (Isagog\u00e8), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque \u0153uvre singuli\u00e8re, les prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et les commentaires eux-m\u00eames) peuvent comporter une description ou une l\u00e9gitimation du prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e : c'est le cas pour le trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories. L'application de crit\u00e8res rh\u00e9toriques d'origine platonicienne conduit \u00e0 s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e avec l'\u0153uvre elle-m\u00eame envisag\u00e9e comme totalit\u00e9 organique. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qogll7IhtIDqqda","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":188,"full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":189,"full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":685,"section_of":371,"pages":"209-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Entrer en mati\u00e8re. Les prologues","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dubois1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"Vingt-huit auteurs ont \u00e9tudi\u00e9 les pages introductives d'oeuvres philosophiques et th\u00e9ologiques de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et du Moyen Age, de Bibles et de commentaires, manuscrits et imprim\u00e9s, r\u00e9dig\u00e9s par des juifs et des chr\u00e9tiens jusqu'au XVIIe si\u00e8cle. Ils montrent comment ces pages d\u00e9finissent des \"orientations herm\u00e9neutiques\", des \"protocoles de lecture\" ou encore tissent des liens avec les lecteurs. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GzDhLGjpBoVziqc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":371,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre d\u2019\u00c9tudes des Religions du Livre, Cerf","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8) |
Pages | 788-791 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Craig, Edward |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius’ exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy ever since. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"717","_score":null,"_source":{"id":717,"authors_free":[{"id":1066,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1067,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":470,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Craig, Edward","free_first_name":"Edward","free_last_name":"Craig","norm_person":{"id":470,"first_name":"Edward","last_name":"Craig","full_name":"Craig, Edward","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1079630643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius\u2019 exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy ever since. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":470,"full_name":"Craig, Edward","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":717,"section_of":716,"pages":"788-791","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":716,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edward1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online (REP Online) is the largest and most comprehensive resource available for all those involved in the study of philosophy. It is a trusted source of quality information, providing access to over 2,800 articles that have been edited for level and consistency by a team of renowned subject experts.\u00a0\r\nRegularly updated with new and revised articles it is the ideal entry point for further discovery and research, clearly organised and with over 25,000 cross-references linking themes, concepts and philosophers. It is also an ideal reference source for those in subjects related to philosophy, such as politics, psychology, economics, anthropology, religion and literature. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hd71FhU5RvTpqmA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":716,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 67-80 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schenkeveld, Dirk M. |
Editor(s) | Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. |
Translator(s) |
In the list of Theophrastus’ works on rhetoric and poetics as given in the new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, some of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles come from the list of Theophrastus’ works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- 50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and on the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. The responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles of works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea tises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the fact that Diogenes’ list does not give any indication of the type of work to which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their own arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, and especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents of 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac cording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, even by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too much, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1038,"authors_free":[{"id":1573,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":397,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","free_first_name":"Dirk M.","free_last_name":"Schenkeveld","norm_person":{"id":397,"first_name":"Dirk M.","last_name":"Schenkeveld","full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119331691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1574,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"Van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"},"abstract":"In the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works on rhetoric and poetics as given in \r\nthe new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, \r\nsome of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles \r\ncome from the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- \r\n50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and \r\non the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. \r\nThe responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles \r\nof works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea\u00ad\r\ntises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the \r\nfact that Diogenes\u2019 list does not give any indication of the type of work \r\nto which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their \r\nown arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, \r\nand especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents \r\nof 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac\u00ad\r\ncording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, \r\neven by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too \r\nmuch, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":397,"full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1038,"section_of":1298,"pages":"67-80","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 143-169 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. , Raalte, Marlein van |
Translator(s) |
Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d’Aristote comporte trois mentions de Théophraste, dont une brève référence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous possédons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages dérivent du premier livre de la Physique de Théophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre général de l’ouvrage de Théophraste (« dans son propre traité physique »), 144B précise : « au début de ses livres physiques ». La citation de Théophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins précise, mais en l’occurrence parfaitement adéquate (puisque l’extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A/B) : « dans le premier livre de ses traités physiques ». Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du traité d’Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour première tâche à la science physique de déterminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite immédiate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre « ce qui est plus connu pour nous » et « ce qui est plus connu par nature ». Les éditeurs ont mis 142/143 en tête, sans doute parce que, énonçant des propositions méthodologiques sur le statut de l’enquête physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les préalables, alors que 144A/B mettent déjà en jeu des propositions physiques particulières. Mais ceci peut avoir été un effet de l’exégèse de Théophraste, fortement marquée, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance systématisante. À condition d’inverser l’ordre adopté par les éditeurs (c’est-à-dire d’admettre que le fragment cité dans 144B précédait dans l’original celui que rapporte 143), l’ensemble offre les linéaments d’un commentaire continu de la première page de la Physique d’Aristote. L’analyse qui suit tente d’en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"883","_score":null,"_source":{"id":883,"authors_free":[{"id":1298,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1299,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1300,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein van","free_last_name":"Raalte","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d\u2019Aristote comporte trois mentions de Th\u00e9ophraste, dont une br\u00e8ve r\u00e9f\u00e9rence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous poss\u00e9dons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages d\u00e9rivent du premier livre de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019ouvrage de Th\u00e9ophraste (\u00ab dans son propre trait\u00e9 physique \u00bb), 144B pr\u00e9cise : \u00ab au d\u00e9but de ses livres physiques \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLa citation de Th\u00e9ophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins pr\u00e9cise, mais en l\u2019occurrence parfaitement ad\u00e9quate (puisque l\u2019extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A\/B) : \u00ab dans le premier livre de ses trait\u00e9s physiques \u00bb. Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A\/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du trait\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour premi\u00e8re t\u00e2che \u00e0 la science physique de d\u00e9terminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite imm\u00e9diate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre \u00ab ce qui est plus connu pour nous \u00bb et \u00ab ce qui est plus connu par nature \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLes \u00e9diteurs ont mis 142\/143 en t\u00eate, sans doute parce que, \u00e9non\u00e7ant des propositions m\u00e9thodologiques sur le statut de l\u2019enqu\u00eate physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les pr\u00e9alables, alors que 144A\/B mettent d\u00e9j\u00e0 en jeu des propositions physiques particuli\u00e8res. Mais ceci peut avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 un effet de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Th\u00e9ophraste, fortement marqu\u00e9e, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance syst\u00e9matisante. \u00c0 condition d\u2019inverser l\u2019ordre adopt\u00e9 par les \u00e9diteurs (c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire d\u2019admettre que le fragment cit\u00e9 dans 144B pr\u00e9c\u00e9dait dans l\u2019original celui que rapporte 143), l\u2019ensemble offre les lin\u00e9aments d\u2019un commentaire continu de la premi\u00e8re page de la Physique d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019analyse qui suit tente d\u2019en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":883,"section_of":1298,"pages":"143-169","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | Pluralism after Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought |
Pages | 127-179 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Curd, Patricia |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the influence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence appears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and in the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies take. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and then turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 171-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Haas, Frans A. J. de |
Editor(s) | Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. |
Translator(s) |
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things. Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things. Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be. This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument. In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1998]}
Title | The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Aristotle and after |
Pages | 91-107 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gaskin, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called ‘sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are ‘complete’ lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex ‘complete’ lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, ‘incomplete’ lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rhêma) ‘writes’ and the complete sentence (logos) ‘Socrates writes’ should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). In this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome |
Pages | 110-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KXHna6DA0dhoqno |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"647","_score":null,"_source":{"id":647,"authors_free":[{"id":926,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":927,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":928,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KXHna6DA0dhoqno","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":647,"section_of":283,"pages":"110-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Aristotle and after |
Pages | 181-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice. To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows: The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes. Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution. Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/roAfpopRonK2aKn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition |
Pages | 1-22 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Morrison, Donald R. |
Editor(s) | Keßler, Eckhard , Di Liscia, Daniel A. , Methuen, Charlotte |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but crucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by which the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical things. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method for acquiring first principles in physics: “Clearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the principles [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) rather than apodeictic (apodeiktike)."... [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"834","_score":null,"_source":{"id":834,"authors_free":[{"id":1238,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":266,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","free_first_name":"Donald R.","free_last_name":"Morisson","norm_person":{"id":266,"first_name":"Donald R.","last_name":"Morrison","full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14341285X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2116,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":267,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","free_first_name":"Eckhard","free_last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":267,"first_name":"Eckhard","last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117756431","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2117,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":268,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","free_first_name":"Daniel A.","free_last_name":"Di Liscia","norm_person":{"id":268,"first_name":"Daniel A.","last_name":"Di Liscia","full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140744282","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2118,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":269,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","free_first_name":"Charlotte","free_last_name":"Methuen","norm_person":{"id":269,"first_name":"Charlotte","last_name":"Methuen","full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137191812","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but \r\ncrucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by \r\nwhich the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical \r\nthings. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist \r\nphilosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method \r\nfor acquiring first principles in physics: \u201cClearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the \r\nprinciples [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) \r\nrather than apodeictic (apodeiktike).\"... [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":266,"full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":267,"full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":268,"full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":269,"full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":834,"section_of":298,"pages":"1-22","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Liscia1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the \u2019Foundation for Intellectual History\u2019 at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenb\u00fcttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the \u2019emergence of modern science\u2019 in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with \u2019non-regressive\u2019 methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":298,"pubplace":"Hampshire - Brookfield","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Roman Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome |
Pages | 1-69 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam |
Translator(s) |
When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived—and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens—whence, as part of Sulla’s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the ‘Roman edition’ of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle’s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text. Andronicus’ Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle’s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus—and to Sulla. That story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven—and in any event, the story is a peach. My concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle’s texts reached Rome—and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle’s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"961","_score":null,"_source":{"id":961,"authors_free":[{"id":1442,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1443,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":417,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":417,"first_name":"Miriam","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121037975","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2242,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Roman Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Roman Aristotle"},"abstract":"When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived\u2014and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens\u2014whence, as part of Sulla\u2019s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the \u2018Roman edition\u2019 of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle\u2019s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text.\r\n\r\nAndronicus\u2019 Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle\u2019s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus\u2014and to Sulla.\r\n\r\nThat story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven\u2014and in any event, the story is a peach.\r\n\r\nMy concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle\u2019s texts reached Rome\u2014and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle\u2019s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":417,"full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":961,"section_of":283,"pages":"1-69","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker |
Pages | 213-228 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Joyal, Mark |
Translator(s) |
As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius. This is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,¹ but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate—or undermine—readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*² If, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short—a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.³ But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. Hence the label Ps-Simplicius—a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it. [introduction p. 213-214] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SafBRE6SrgivoG5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1469","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1469,"authors_free":[{"id":2543,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2544,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":540,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joyal, Mark","free_first_name":"Mark","free_last_name":"Joyal","norm_person":{"id":540,"first_name":"Mark","last_name":"Joyal","full_name":"Joyal, Mark","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162514582","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5","main_title":{"title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"},"abstract":"As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius.\r\n\r\nThis is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,\u00b9 but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate\u2014or undermine\u2014readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*\u00b2\r\n\r\nIf, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short\u2014a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.\u00b3 But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth.\r\n\r\nHence the label Ps-Simplicius\u2014a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it.\r\n[introduction p. 213-214]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SafBRE6SrgivoG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":540,"full_name":"Joyal, Mark","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1469,"section_of":1470,"pages":"213-228","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1470,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book, which honours the career of a distinguished scholar, contains essays dealing with important problems in Plato, the Platonic tradition, and the texts and transmission of Plato and later Platonic writers. It ranges from the discussion of issues in individual Platonic dialogues to the examination of Platonism in the Middle Ages. The essays are written by leading scholars in the field and reflect the current state of knowledge on the various problems under discussion. The collection as a whole testifies to the importance of the Platonic writings for the history of ideas, and to the vitality that the study of these writings continues to possess.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JhijSNjBEJlYa2C","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1470,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge (2017)","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
Title | L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Antiquités imaginaires. La référence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance à nos jours |
Pages | 143-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Rinuy, Paul-Louis , Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
Il est néanmoins permis d’insister, comme nous l'avons déjà dit, sur la tonalité manifestement néoplatonicienne de l’œuvre. Tout d’abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l’allégorie de la Philosophie et l’École d’Athènes. Il est vrai que l’allégorie est construite sur l’idée d’une dualité des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties égales. La légende, «Causarum cognitio», est certainement inspirée par la légende de l’allégorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le Pérugin) dans le Cambio de Pérouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a été rédigé par le responsable du programme – d’esprit «ficinien» –, l’érudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme «modeste auteur de la Cronaca della città di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503», mais aussi comme aristotélicien thomiste, helléniste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs. Maturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adhésion à l'idée d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chrétien, une idée qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On relève notamment, dans la légende de la Prudence de Pérouse, l’expression «...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...». Et comme Raphaël avait travaillé avec le Pérugin, en compagnie de qui il était venu à Rome, le lien entre «scrutari... causas latentes» et «causarum cognitio» est tout à fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'éthique, de même que l'Artémis d’Éphèse représente la Nature avec ses secrets – l’objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie –, et n’a guère de rapport avec l'éthique. La dissymétrie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le maître est, comme il se doit, à la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrastée qu’elle ne peut signifier qu'une différence de domaine : les Idées et le Démiurge sont le domaine d'élection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain – le plus grand bonheur qui puisse échoir à l’homme – est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste généreux, qui s’adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque. Comment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un écho précis des conceptions néoplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des thèmes que nous avons maintes fois rencontrés et que Raphaël – ou le responsable du programme iconographique – a puisés dans la culture néoplatonicienne de l'époque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole : L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales à partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition. La supériorité de la philosophie de Platon (les «grands mystères» néoplatoniciens) sur celle d’Aristote (les «petits mystères»), qui est la propédeutique à la philosophie de Platon et qui succède elle-même au cycle des sept Arts Libéraux, dont on a voulu déceler la représentation parmi le savant désordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales. La différence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont élevés les deux penseurs : Platon a décrit le Monde non pas de manière immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes – les Idées et le Démiurge. Il étudie les réalités naturelles elles-mêmes en considérant leur relation à celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-à-dire les réalités intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L’étude du Timée, œuvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen Âge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquité du second cycle du cursus néoplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon. Quant à Aristote, il offre une pensée du bonheur qui doit permettre à l’homme, en menant la vie théorétique – qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes –, de «s’immortaliser autant qu’il est possible». Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu’à la date où Raphaël conçut l’École d’Athènes, il n’existait pas de traduction italienne en édition séparée du Timée ni des Éthiques d’Aristote. On peut ajouter que l’édition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait être publiée qu’en 1513 à Venise (édition aldine), et que Platon était lu à l’époque dans la célèbre traduction latine de Ficin imprimée en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l’édition princeps des œuvres d’Aristote en grec avait été donnée peu d'années auparavant à Venise par Alde Manuce. Précisément, la Préface grecque d’Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d’Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un éloge de la supériorité de la philosophie péripatéticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu après, en 1499, paraissait à Venise également l’édition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Catégories, œuvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commodément lire le développement que nous avons étudié sur la finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote. Ces deux remarques bibliographiques ne prétendent en aucun cas assigner une source littéraire à un célèbre détail iconographique. La leçon de méthode et de prudence d’E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypothèse, impossible à prouver en toute rigueur, à tant d’autres. Ce que l’on peut souligner en revanche, si l’on veut bien admettre que, dans une période d’effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publiés étaient lus et que les idées circulaient, c’est un écho troublant entre le thème de la Préface d’Alexandre Bondini (1495), le développement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote (imprimé en 1499), et le principe «symphonique» néoplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l’École d’Athènes (1509–1511). [conclusion p. 154-158] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":682,"authors_free":[{"id":1011,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1012,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2022,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":186,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis","free_first_name":"Paul-Louis","free_last_name":"Rinuy","norm_person":{"id":186,"first_name":"Paul-Louis ","last_name":"Rinuy","full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14126795X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2392,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":187,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Alexandre","free_last_name":"Farnoux","norm_person":{"id":187,"first_name":"Alexandre ","last_name":"Farnoux","full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188370528","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl","main_title":{"title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"},"abstract":"Il est n\u00e9anmoins permis d\u2019insister, comme nous l'avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit, sur la tonalit\u00e9 manifestement n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l\u2019\u0153uvre. Tout d\u2019abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Philosophie et l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes. Il est vrai que l\u2019all\u00e9gorie est construite sur l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une dualit\u00e9 des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties \u00e9gales. La l\u00e9gende, \u00abCausarum cognitio\u00bb, est certainement inspir\u00e9e par la l\u00e9gende de l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le P\u00e9rugin) dans le Cambio de P\u00e9rouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par le responsable du programme \u2013 d\u2019esprit \u00abficinien\u00bb \u2013, l\u2019\u00e9rudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme \u00abmodeste auteur de la Cronaca della citt\u00e0 di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503\u00bb, mais aussi comme aristot\u00e9licien thomiste, hell\u00e9niste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs.\r\n\r\nMaturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adh\u00e9sion \u00e0 l'id\u00e9e d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chr\u00e9tien, une id\u00e9e qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On rel\u00e8ve notamment, dans la l\u00e9gende de la Prudence de P\u00e9rouse, l\u2019expression \u00ab...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...\u00bb. Et comme Rapha\u00ebl avait travaill\u00e9 avec le P\u00e9rugin, en compagnie de qui il \u00e9tait venu \u00e0 Rome, le lien entre \u00abscrutari... causas latentes\u00bb et \u00abcausarum cognitio\u00bb est tout \u00e0 fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'\u00e9thique, de m\u00eame que l'Art\u00e9mis d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se repr\u00e9sente la Nature avec ses secrets \u2013 l\u2019objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie \u2013, et n\u2019a gu\u00e8re de rapport avec l'\u00e9thique.\r\n\r\nLa dissym\u00e9trie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le ma\u00eetre est, comme il se doit, \u00e0 la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrast\u00e9e qu\u2019elle ne peut signifier qu'une diff\u00e9rence de domaine : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge sont le domaine d'\u00e9lection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain \u2013 le plus grand bonheur qui puisse \u00e9choir \u00e0 l\u2019homme \u2013 est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste g\u00e9n\u00e9reux, qui s\u2019adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque.\r\n\r\nComment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un \u00e9cho pr\u00e9cis des conceptions n\u00e9oplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des th\u00e8mes que nous avons maintes fois rencontr\u00e9s et que Rapha\u00ebl \u2013 ou le responsable du programme iconographique \u2013 a puis\u00e9s dans la culture n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l'\u00e9poque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole :\r\n\r\n L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales \u00e0 partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition.\r\n La sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie de Platon (les \u00abgrands myst\u00e8res\u00bb n\u00e9oplatoniciens) sur celle d\u2019Aristote (les \u00abpetits myst\u00e8res\u00bb), qui est la prop\u00e9deutique \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon et qui succ\u00e8de elle-m\u00eame au cycle des sept Arts Lib\u00e9raux, dont on a voulu d\u00e9celer la repr\u00e9sentation parmi le savant d\u00e9sordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales.\r\n La diff\u00e9rence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont \u00e9lev\u00e9s les deux penseurs : Platon a d\u00e9crit le Monde non pas de mani\u00e8re immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes \u2013 les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge. Il \u00e9tudie les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles elles-m\u00eames en consid\u00e9rant leur relation \u00e0 celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-\u00e0-dire les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L\u2019\u00e9tude du Tim\u00e9e, \u0153uvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen \u00c2ge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 du second cycle du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 Aristote, il offre une pens\u00e9e du bonheur qui doit permettre \u00e0 l\u2019homme, en menant la vie th\u00e9or\u00e9tique \u2013 qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes \u2013, de \u00abs\u2019immortaliser autant qu\u2019il est possible\u00bb. Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu\u2019\u00e0 la date o\u00f9 Rapha\u00ebl con\u00e7ut l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il n\u2019existait pas de traduction italienne en \u00e9dition s\u00e9par\u00e9e du Tim\u00e9e ni des \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote. On peut ajouter que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait \u00eatre publi\u00e9e qu\u2019en 1513 \u00e0 Venise (\u00e9dition aldine), et que Platon \u00e9tait lu \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque dans la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre traduction latine de Ficin imprim\u00e9e en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote en grec avait \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9e peu d'ann\u00e9es auparavant \u00e0 Venise par Alde Manuce. Pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, la Pr\u00e9face grecque d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d\u2019Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un \u00e9loge de la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu apr\u00e8s, en 1499, paraissait \u00e0 Venise \u00e9galement l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Cat\u00e9gories, \u0153uvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commod\u00e9ment lire le d\u00e9veloppement que nous avons \u00e9tudi\u00e9 sur la finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nCes deux remarques bibliographiques ne pr\u00e9tendent en aucun cas assigner une source litt\u00e9raire \u00e0 un c\u00e9l\u00e8bre d\u00e9tail iconographique. La le\u00e7on de m\u00e9thode et de prudence d\u2019E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se, impossible \u00e0 prouver en toute rigueur, \u00e0 tant d\u2019autres. Ce que l\u2019on peut souligner en revanche, si l\u2019on veut bien admettre que, dans une p\u00e9riode d\u2019effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publi\u00e9s \u00e9taient lus et que les id\u00e9es circulaient, c\u2019est un \u00e9cho troublant entre le th\u00e8me de la Pr\u00e9face d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (1495), le d\u00e9veloppement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote (imprim\u00e9 en 1499), et le principe \u00absymphonique\u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (1509\u20131511). [conclusion p. 154-158]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":186,"full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":187,"full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":682,"section_of":165,"pages":"143-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":165,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Rassemblant quatorze contributions de sp\u00e9cialistes de la litt\u00e9rature et de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art, ce livre tente de donner une s\u00e9rie d\u2019aper\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis des diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res dont la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le, capital, dans la cr\u00e9ation artistique de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours.\r\nDe Rapha\u00ebl jusqu\u2019aux actuels mouvements \u00ab post-modernes \u00bb, la cr\u00e9ation a \u00e9t\u00e9 profond\u00e9ment marqu\u00e9e en Occident par les visages successifs d\u2019une Antiquit\u00e9 sans cesse r\u00e9invent\u00e9e et r\u00e9interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au coeur des d\u00e9bats et des r\u00e9flexions des \u00e9crivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d\u2019oeuvre de l\u2019architecture et de la sculpture \u2013 le Parth\u00e9non ou le Laocoon \u2013 ont inspir\u00e9 les artistes au fil de leurs red\u00e9couvertes successives de l\u2019art antique. H\u00e9ritage, influence, r\u00e9invention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne crucial et chatoyant. Les \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire et d\u2019une table ronde tenus au Centre d\u2019\u00e9tudes anciennes de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019Antique au sein des modernit\u00e9s [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Al1RSBIKKbIdEE7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":165,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday |
Pages | 3-20 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schofield, Malcom |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. , Runia, David T. |
Translator(s) |
Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately associate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ runs to less than three full pages of text, and the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is one of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of Raven’s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does not refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood’s or Furth’s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld takes as his topic, ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ seems to me much the most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In what follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its interpretation of the mysterious ‘other world’, and against some of the alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1036","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1036,"authors_free":[{"id":1567,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1568,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1570,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":30,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Runia, David T.","free_first_name":"David T.","free_last_name":"Runia","norm_person":{"id":30,"first_name":"David T.","last_name":"Runia","full_name":"Runia, David T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113181515","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"},"abstract":"Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately \r\nassociate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled \r\n\u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 runs to less than three full pages of text, \r\nand the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is \r\none of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of \r\nRaven\u2019s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does \r\nnot refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood\u2019s or \r\nFurth\u2019s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld \r\ntakes as his topic, \u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 seems to me much \r\nthe most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In \r\nwhat follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its \r\ninterpretation of the mysterious \u2018other world\u2019, and against some of \r\nthe alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":30,"full_name":"Runia, David T.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1036,"section_of":162,"pages":"3-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":162,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra\/Horst\/Runia1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"During the past three decades Jaap Mansfeld, Professor of Ancient Philosophy in Utrecht, has built up a formidable reputation as a leading scholar in his field. His work has concentrated on the Presocratics, Hellenistic Philosophy, the sources of our knowledge of ancient philosophy (esp. doxography) and the history of scholarship.\r\nIn honour of his sixtieth birthday, colleagues and friends have contributed a collection of articles which represent the state of the art in the study of the history of ancient philosophy and frequently concentrate on subjects in which the honorand has made important discoveries.\r\nThe 22 contributors include M. Baltes, J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, W.M. Calder III, J. Dillon, P.L. Donini, J. Glucker, A.A. Long, L.M. de Rijk, D. Sedley, P. Schrijvers, and M. Vegetti. The volume concludes with a complete bibliography of Jaap Mansfeld's scholarly work so far. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h3vavPv0hEyKsdh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":162,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"72","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | The writings of the De anima commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
Pages | 53-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was simply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own philosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen tally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries which, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in which doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest possible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta tors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming increasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo sophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The late Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the production of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a Christian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that light So we find at the end of Simplicius’ commentary on the De caelo what can only be described as a prayer: ‘Oh lord and artificer of the universe and the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being by you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the magnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so that thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make obeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect of all that is produced by you’ (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient philosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before these words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim plicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely ever to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary on the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under stand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, works whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the gods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"927","_score":null,"_source":{"id":927,"authors_free":[{"id":1371,"entry_id":927,"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}},{"id":2527,"entry_id":927,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The writings of the De anima commentators","main_title":{"title":"The writings of the De anima commentators"},"abstract":"So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was \r\nsimply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own \r\nphilosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen\u00ad\r\ntally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries \r\nwhich, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in \r\nwhich doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest \r\npossible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta\u00ad\r\ntors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming \r\nincreasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo\u00ad\r\nsophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The \r\nlate Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the \r\nproduction of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a \r\nChristian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that \r\nlight So we find at the end of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the De caelo what \r\ncan only be described as a prayer: \u2018Oh lord and artificer of the universe \r\nand the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being \r\nby you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the \r\nmagnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so \r\nthat thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make \r\nobeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect \r\nof all that is produced by you\u2019 (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient \r\nphilosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before \r\nthese words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim\u00ad\r\nplicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely \r\never to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary \r\non the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under\u00ad\r\nstand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, \r\nworks whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the \r\ngods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":927,"section_of":213,"pages":"53-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | The Oxford Classical Dictionary |
Pages | 1409-1410 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Spawforth, Antony , Hornblower, Simon |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad. Simplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle’s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium. At the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus. Commentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. Dübner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes mésopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1386,"authors_free":[{"id":2139,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2142,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":335,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spawforth, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Spawforth","norm_person":{"id":335,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Spawforth","full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131894757","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2143,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":334,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hornblower, Simon","free_first_name":"Simon","free_last_name":"Hornblower","norm_person":{"id":334,"first_name":"Simon","last_name":"Hornblower","full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135771676","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus.\r\n\r\nCommentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. D\u00fcbner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes m\u00e9sopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":335,"full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":334,"full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1386,"section_of":1387,"pages":"1409-1410","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1387,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Classical Dictionary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hornblower1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"For more than half a century, the Oxford Classical Dictionary has been the unrivaled one-volume reference work on the Greco-Roman world. Whether one is interested in literature or art, philosophy or law, mythology or science, intimate details of daily life or broad cultural and historical trends, the OCD is the first place to turn for clear, authoritative information on all aspects of ancient culture.\r\n\r\nNow comes the Fourth Edition of this redoubtable resource, thoroughly revised and updated, with numerous new entries and two new focus areas (on reception and anthropology). Here, in over six thousand entries ranging from long articles to brief identifications, readers can find information on virtually any topic of interest--athletics, bee-keeping, botany, magic, religious rites, postal service, slavery, navigation, and the reckoning of time. The Oxford Classical Dictionary profiles every major figure of Greece and Rome, from Homer and Virgil to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Readers will find entries on mythological and legendary figures, on major cities, famous buildings, and important geographical landmarks, and on legal, rhetorical, literary, and political terms and concepts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FsDwLlWXlqssLoo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1387,"pubplace":"Oxford \u2013 New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"3","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | The commentators: their identity and their background |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
Pages | 35-51 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators’ methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates. The information most consistently available is the most useless—an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: “Proclus the Lycian,” “Simplicius the Cilician,” “Priscian the Lydian.” Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled “Alexandrian,” too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in. Nevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius’ reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there. Unfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius. Two works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias’ Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer’s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below. At an earlier period, Marinus’ Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary—namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch’s grandson Archiadas and Proclus’ contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus’ ascent to its summit. In addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius. There are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius’ Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His—probably—contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher. One of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius. Let us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed. We can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists’ Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul. Since, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius’ De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus’ influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus’ commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name. It is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus’ lead was followed by at least some—perhaps avoiding at this stage adding "Athenians"—at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius’ expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus’ influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible. Its extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert—an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end. After Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist. Themistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy’s funds, from whatever source these came. Themistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone’s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1449,"authors_free":[{"id":2431,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2444,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The commentators: their identity and their background","main_title":{"title":"The commentators: their identity and their background"},"abstract":"While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators\u2019 methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates.\r\n\r\nThe information most consistently available is the most useless\u2014an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: \u201cProclus the Lycian,\u201d \u201cSimplicius the Cilician,\u201d \u201cPriscian the Lydian.\u201d Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled \u201cAlexandrian,\u201d too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius\u2019 reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius.\r\n\r\nTwo works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias\u2019 Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer\u2019s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below.\r\n\r\nAt an earlier period, Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary\u2014namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch\u2019s grandson Archiadas and Proclus\u2019 contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus\u2019 ascent to its summit.\r\n\r\nIn addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius.\r\n\r\nThere are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius\u2019 Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His\u2014probably\u2014contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher.\r\n\r\nOne of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLet us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed.\r\n\r\nWe can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists\u2019 Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul.\r\n\r\nSince, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius\u2019 De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus\u2019 influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus\u2019 commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name.\r\n\r\nIt is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus\u2019 lead was followed by at least some\u2014perhaps avoiding at this stage adding \"Athenians\"\u2014at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius\u2019 expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus\u2019 influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible.\r\n\r\nIts extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert\u2014an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end.\r\n\r\nAfter Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist.\r\n\r\nThemistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy\u2019s funds, from whatever source these came.\r\n\r\nThemistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone\u2019s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1449,"section_of":213,"pages":"35-51","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994) |
Pages | 107-116 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cortassa, Guido |
Editor(s) | Conca, Fabrizio |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8BwDS59793lFKd2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1472","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1472,"authors_free":[{"id":2547,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":541,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","free_first_name":"Fabrizio","free_last_name":"Conca","norm_person":{"id":541,"first_name":"Fabrizio","last_name":"Conca","full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157349595","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2548,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":542,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cortassa, Guido","free_first_name":"Guido","free_last_name":"Cortassa","norm_person":{"id":542,"first_name":"Guido","last_name":"Cortassa","full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto","main_title":{"title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8BwDS59793lFKd2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":541,"full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":542,"full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1472,"section_of":1471,"pages":"107-116","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1471,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Conca1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4FIpP1ncE8R5FJL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1471,"pubplace":"Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro)","publisher":"","series":"Medioevo romanzo e orientale. Colloqui","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | Dunamis in "Simplicius" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Università degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994 |
Pages | 149-172 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana , Romano, Francesco |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/abLTBIirPsa77f4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1495","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1495,"authors_free":[{"id":2593,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2594,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2595,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\"","main_title":{"title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/abLTBIirPsa77f4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1495,"section_of":1494,"pages":"149-172","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1494,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Universit\u00e0 degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Romano_Cardullo_1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PQyCtyKJxkHvx2E","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1494,"pubplace":"Firenze","publisher":"La nuova Italia","series":"Symbolon. Studi e testi di filosofia antica e medievale","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1996]}
Title | Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Concepts of space in Greek thought |
Pages | 121-191 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Translator(s) |
The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place¹⁵¹—and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A—I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims. If we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established—and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so—and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle’s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4. There I investigated Aristotle’s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle’s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the ‘theoretical terms’ of the ‘physical system’ of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point. We might call this, with Morsink¹⁵², a process of ‘conjectures and refutations,’ as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such ‘conjectures’ usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance¹⁵³. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these ‘apparent features.’ A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle’s eventual ‘physical’ concept of place. All this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A. On the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate façon de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle’s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances. As a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to—and indeed started off from—the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato’s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1158","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1158,"authors_free":[{"id":1731,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2348,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"},"abstract":"The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place\u00b9\u2075\u00b9\u2014and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A\u2014I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims.\r\n\r\nIf we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established\u2014and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so\u2014and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4.\r\n\r\nThere I investigated Aristotle\u2019s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle\u2019s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the \u2018theoretical terms\u2019 of the \u2018physical system\u2019 of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point.\r\n\r\nWe might call this, with Morsink\u00b9\u2075\u00b2, a process of \u2018conjectures and refutations,\u2019 as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such \u2018conjectures\u2019 usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance\u00b9\u2075\u00b3. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these \u2018apparent features.\u2019 A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle\u2019s eventual \u2018physical\u2019 concept of place.\r\n\r\nAll this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate fa\u00e7on de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle\u2019s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances.\r\n\r\nAs a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to\u2014and indeed started off from\u2014the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato\u2019s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1158,"section_of":232,"pages":"121-191","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}
Title | Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Concepts of space in Greek thought |
Pages | 192-260 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Translator(s) |
In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle’s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle’s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle’s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes. In section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus. Two other problems left open by Aristotle—viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status—seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed—together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens—by both Eudemus and Theophrastus. It appears—if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us—that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master’s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle’s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle’s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle’s arguments in clearer terms. But even if Eudemus appears to have been the more ‘orthodox’ of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus’ dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies—suggested in fr. 149—may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position. For insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.¹⁴⁴ And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact. At the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus’ solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle’s (and Eudemus’) rather naïve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).¹⁴⁵ This brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus’ suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals. We need only look at Aristotle’s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues. This, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle’s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work. And the mere fact that Aristotle’s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.¹⁴⁶ At any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition—for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,¹⁴⁷ and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JNlEob1OVl4sohO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1159,"authors_free":[{"id":1735,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2347,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions","main_title":{"title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"},"abstract":"In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle\u2019s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle\u2019s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.\r\n\r\nIn section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.\r\n\r\nTwo other problems left open by Aristotle\u2014viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status\u2014seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed\u2014together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens\u2014by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt appears\u2014if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us\u2014that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master\u2019s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle\u2019s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle\u2019s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle\u2019s arguments in clearer terms.\r\n\r\nBut even if Eudemus appears to have been the more \u2018orthodox\u2019 of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus\u2019 dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies\u2014suggested in fr. 149\u2014may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.\r\n\r\nFor insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.\u00b9\u2074\u2074 And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus\u2019 solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle\u2019s (and Eudemus\u2019) rather na\u00efve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).\u00b9\u2074\u2075\r\n\r\nThis brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus\u2019 suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.\r\n\r\nWe need only look at Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.\r\n\r\nThis, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle\u2019s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.\r\n\r\nAnd the mere fact that Aristotle\u2019s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2074\u2076\r\n\r\nAt any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition\u2014for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,\u00b9\u2074\u2077 and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNlEob1OVl4sohO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1159,"section_of":232,"pages":"192-260","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}
Title | Counting Plato's Principles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition |
Pages | 67-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Ayres, Lewis |
Translator(s) |
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites. Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views. Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle. Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}
Title | Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi |
Pages | 175-185 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Moreschini, Claudio |
Translator(s) |
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin : Hiéroclès et Simplicius¹, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien. Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la métripathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats. Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant)². Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif³, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius⁴, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens. Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique⁵ et Proclus⁶. David (Élias), pour sa part, nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate⁷, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète⁸, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προστακτικαί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. [introduction p. 51-52] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1498","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1498,"authors_free":[{"id":2598,"entry_id":1498,"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}},{"id":2599,"entry_id":1498,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":556,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","free_first_name":"Claudio","free_last_name":"Moreschini","norm_person":{"id":556,"first_name":"Claudio","last_name":"Moreschini","full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028672292","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel","main_title":{"title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin : Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius\u00b9, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien.\r\n\r\nIl s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la m\u00e9tripathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant)\u00b2.\r\n\r\nMais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif\u00b3, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius\u2074, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique\u2075 et Proclus\u2076. David (\u00c9lias), pour sa part, nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate\u2077, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te\u2078, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af).\r\n\r\nNous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":556,"full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1498,"section_of":1497,"pages":"175-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1497,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in et\u00e0 tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Moreschini1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TdVasyOFO7lHMY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1497,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"M. D'Auria","series":"Collectanea (D'Auria)","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}
Title | Platonism in late antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 1-27 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. ‘Neoplatonist’ and ‘Neoplatonic’ first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato. Given our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another. Before going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two. First, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions—Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work—was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar’s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie’s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek: "With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek..." That was in 1962. What I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one’s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products. [introduction p. 1-2] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1126","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1126,"authors_free":[{"id":1701,"entry_id":1126,"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}},{"id":2440,"entry_id":1126,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Platonism in late antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonism in late antiquity"},"abstract":"The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. \u2018Neoplatonist\u2019 and \u2018Neoplatonic\u2019 first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato.\r\n\r\nGiven our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another.\r\n\r\nBefore going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two.\r\n\r\nFirst, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions\u2014Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work\u2014was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar\u2019s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie\u2019s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek:\r\n\r\n\"With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek...\"\r\n\r\nThat was in 1962.\r\n\r\nWhat I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one\u2019s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products.\r\n[introduction p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1126,"section_of":214,"pages":"1-27","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}
Title | Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Symbolae Berolinenses. Für Dieter Harlfinger |
Pages | 187-199 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Berger, Friederike , Brockmann, Christian , De Gregorio, Giuseppe , Ghisu, Maria Irene , Kotzabassi, Sofia , Noack, Beate |
Translator(s) |
Gewiss, ein lückenloser Beweis der Ursprünglichkeit der Anführungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn für die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht möglich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so häufigen und eindeutigen Anführungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. Möglicherweise ließe sich dieselbe Forderung mit ähnlicher Berechtigung auch für andere Zeichen geltend machen. Jedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten spätantiker Zeit Zeichen überliefert sein können, die nicht nur für das korrekte Verständnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel späterer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschließend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz ähnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert: "Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den frühesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, Sätze oder Satzteile oder gar Wörter durch größere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion möchte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird." [conclusion p. 196-197] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"722","_score":null,"_source":{"id":722,"authors_free":[{"id":1076,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1077,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":361,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Berger, Friederike","free_first_name":"Friederike","free_last_name":"Berger","norm_person":{"id":361,"first_name":"Friederike","last_name":"Berger","full_name":"Berger, Friederike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1216192375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2415,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2417,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":474,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"De Gregorio","norm_person":{"id":474,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"De Gregorio","full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1056147482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2419,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":475,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","free_first_name":"Maria Irene","free_last_name":"Ghisu","norm_person":{"id":475,"first_name":"Maria Irene","last_name":"Ghisu","full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2421,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":476,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","free_first_name":"Sofia","free_last_name":"Kotzabassi","norm_person":{"id":476,"first_name":"Sofia","last_name":"Kotzabassi","full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030288763","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2423,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":477,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Noack, Beate","free_first_name":"Beate","free_last_name":"Noack","norm_person":{"id":477,"first_name":"Beate","last_name":"Noack","full_name":"Noack, Beate","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1223988120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"},"abstract":"Gewiss, ein l\u00fcckenloser Beweis der Urspr\u00fcnglichkeit der Anf\u00fchrungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn f\u00fcr die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so h\u00e4ufigen und eindeutigen Anf\u00fchrungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. M\u00f6glicherweise lie\u00dfe sich dieselbe Forderung mit \u00e4hnlicher Berechtigung auch f\u00fcr andere Zeichen geltend machen.\r\n\r\nJedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten sp\u00e4tantiker Zeit Zeichen \u00fcberliefert sein k\u00f6nnen, die nicht nur f\u00fcr das korrekte Verst\u00e4ndnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel sp\u00e4terer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschlie\u00dfend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundz\u00fcge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz \u00e4hnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert:\r\n\r\n\"Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den fr\u00fchesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, S\u00e4tze oder Satzteile oder gar W\u00f6rter durch gr\u00f6\u00dfere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion m\u00f6chte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird.\" [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":361,"full_name":"Berger, Friederike","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":474,"full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":475,"full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":476,"full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":477,"full_name":"Noack, Beate","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":722,"section_of":353,"pages":"187-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":353,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Symbolae Berolinenses. F\u00fcr Dieter Harlfinger","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Berger1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WynC9SYoNF55LD8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":353,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}
Title | La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme Dévoilé |
Pages | 175-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Romano, Francesco |
Editor(s) | Dixsaut, Monique |
Translator(s) |
Pour aborder le problème de la défense de Platon contre Aristote par les Néoplatoniciens, il est nécessaire d’opérer des distinctions à la fois historiques et théoriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du développement chronologique de la pensée néoplatonicienne que des différences pouvant exister d’une école néoplatonicienne à l’autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopté des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le problème de savoir si Aristote avait attaqué la théorie des Idées dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interprétation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donnée. D’après ce que nous disent David [Elias], d’une part : Δεῖ αὐτὸν μὴ συμπάσχειν τῷ Πλάτωνι· συνδιδοῖσι τῷ πεπονθέν· Ἰάμβλιχος· οὗτος γὰρ προσπάσχων τῷ Πλάτωνι συνδιδοῖσι τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι οὐκ ἀντιλέγει τῷ Πλάτωνι διὰ τὰς ἰδέας (« L’exégète ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique à la manière de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, prévenu en faveur de Platon, concéda également à Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Idées »), et Étienne d’Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d’autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu’Aristote n’avait pas réfuté Platon à propos des Idées. Tandis que Proclus – si l’on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus réfutait les objections d’Aristote contre le Timée (mais Syrianus aurait fait de même avant Proclus, d’après le témoignage d’Asclepius de Tralle) – aurait, pour sa part, été convaincu qu’Aristote avait combattu et réfuté Platon également sur ce point. Comme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des Péripatéticiens en général, mais il n’est pas possible d’exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se hâter d’ajouter que, malgré leurs divergences, presque tous les Néoplatoniciens s’accordent à considérer comme leur tâche propre de défendre Platon contre les attaques d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens, afin au moins d’éliminer les malentendus et les interprétations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les différentes positions prises tour à tour par l’un ou l’autre des Néoplatoniciens, ou mieux par l’un ou l’autre des courants scolastiques néoplatoniciens, tiennent à des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage à démontrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu’à viser l’objectif principal commandant n’importe quelle exégèse néoplatonicienne du texte d’Aristote : la faire, d’une façon institutionnelle, servir le plus possible à la lecture et à l’étude des textes platoniciens. Si nous voulons comprendre l’esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien théoriques qu’historiques, adoptées par les Néoplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d’une distinction préliminaire entre, d’une part, l’attitude polémique de ceux qui tendent à souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote – donc s’efforcent de réfuter explicitement et sans équivoque les objections d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens contre Platon – et, d’autre part, l’attitude critique (mais peu ou guère critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout à minimiser la « puissance destructrice » des objections aristotéliciennes et péripatéticiennes, au point de ramener la position réelle d’Aristote à celle de Platon. En d’autres termes, il s’agit ou bien de défendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdités présumées dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d’interpréter d’une façon compatible avec la « vérité » platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu’on suppose être la « vérité » aristotélicienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l’emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n’atteint pas sa cible ou pousse à mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l’on accorde à cette critique n’est pas celui qu’elle possède effectivement ou n’est pas le seul qu’elle puisse posséder. L’exégète néoplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le même résultat en suivant deux voies différentes : l’important est de montrer que l’opposition présumée d’Aristote à Platon peut être dépassée et que l’étude du texte d’Aristote peut servir à faciliter la compréhension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Académiciens, tenus pour être la cible des objections d’Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le maître commun). Tout cela signifie que n’importe quelle exégèse du texte aristotélicien (de n’importe quel texte aristotélicien) fait partie de l’exégèse plus générale du texte platonicien. C’était là une des règles de l’enseignement néoplatonicien, donc un élément doctrinal commun à tous les Néoplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-être, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la légitimité de l’exégèse prédominante (à cette époque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristotéliciens. Mais il est temps d’entrer dans le vif du sujet. Nous allons examiner six textes tirés respectivement l’un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d’Ammonius ; après en avoir donné la traduction (la mienne, en l’absence d’indication contraire), j’en viendrai aux conséquences de mon interprétation. [introduction p. 175-177] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LVbezb3omxhQNRC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1057","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1057,"authors_free":[{"id":1605,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1606,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":306,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","free_first_name":"Monique","free_last_name":"Dixsaut","norm_person":{"id":306,"first_name":"Monique","last_name":"Dixsaut","full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114771979","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Pour aborder le probl\u00e8me de la d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il est n\u00e9cessaire d\u2019op\u00e9rer des distinctions \u00e0 la fois historiques et th\u00e9oriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du d\u00e9veloppement chronologique de la pens\u00e9e n\u00e9oplatonicienne que des diff\u00e9rences pouvant exister d\u2019une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne \u00e0 l\u2019autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopt\u00e9 des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le probl\u00e8me de savoir si Aristote avait attaqu\u00e9 la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interpr\u00e9tation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donn\u00e9e.\r\nD\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous disent David [Elias], d\u2019une part :\r\n\u0394\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f38\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\r\n(\u00ab L\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, pr\u00e9venu en faveur de Platon, conc\u00e9da \u00e9galement \u00e0 Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Id\u00e9es \u00bb), et \u00c9tienne d\u2019Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d\u2019autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu\u2019Aristote n\u2019avait pas r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e0 propos des Id\u00e9es. Tandis que Proclus \u2013 si l\u2019on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus r\u00e9futait les objections d\u2019Aristote contre le Tim\u00e9e (mais Syrianus aurait fait de m\u00eame avant Proclus, d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage d\u2019Asclepius de Tralle) \u2013 aurait, pour sa part, \u00e9t\u00e9 convaincu qu\u2019Aristote avait combattu et r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e9galement sur ce point.\r\nComme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, mais il n\u2019est pas possible d\u2019exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se h\u00e2ter d\u2019ajouter que, malgr\u00e9 leurs divergences, presque tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens s\u2019accordent \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer comme leur t\u00e2che propre de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les attaques d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, afin au moins d\u2019\u00e9liminer les malentendus et les interpr\u00e9tations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les diff\u00e9rentes positions prises tour \u00e0 tour par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, ou mieux par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des courants scolastiques n\u00e9oplatoniciens, tiennent \u00e0 des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu\u2019\u00e0 viser l\u2019objectif principal commandant n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne du texte d\u2019Aristote : la faire, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on institutionnelle, servir le plus possible \u00e0 la lecture et \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des textes platoniciens.\r\nSi nous voulons comprendre l\u2019esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien th\u00e9oriques qu\u2019historiques, adopt\u00e9es par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d\u2019une distinction pr\u00e9liminaire entre, d\u2019une part, l\u2019attitude pol\u00e9mique de ceux qui tendent \u00e0 souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote \u2013 donc s\u2019efforcent de r\u00e9futer explicitement et sans \u00e9quivoque les objections d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens contre Platon \u2013 et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019attitude critique (mais peu ou gu\u00e8re critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout \u00e0 minimiser la \u00ab puissance destructrice \u00bb des objections aristot\u00e9liciennes et p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiennes, au point de ramener la position r\u00e9elle d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\nEn d\u2019autres termes, il s\u2019agit ou bien de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdit\u00e9s pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d\u2019interpr\u00e9ter d\u2019une fa\u00e7on compatible avec la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu\u2019on suppose \u00eatre la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb aristot\u00e9licienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l\u2019emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n\u2019atteint pas sa cible ou pousse \u00e0 mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l\u2019on accorde \u00e0 cette critique n\u2019est pas celui qu\u2019elle poss\u00e8de effectivement ou n\u2019est pas le seul qu\u2019elle puisse poss\u00e9der.\r\nL\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le m\u00eame r\u00e9sultat en suivant deux voies diff\u00e9rentes : l\u2019important est de montrer que l\u2019opposition pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Platon peut \u00eatre d\u00e9pass\u00e9e et que l\u2019\u00e9tude du texte d\u2019Aristote peut servir \u00e0 faciliter la compr\u00e9hension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Acad\u00e9miciens, tenus pour \u00eatre la cible des objections d\u2019Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le ma\u00eetre commun). Tout cela signifie que n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du texte aristot\u00e9licien (de n\u2019importe quel texte aristot\u00e9licien) fait partie de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du texte platonicien.\r\nC\u2019\u00e9tait l\u00e0 une des r\u00e8gles de l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc un \u00e9l\u00e9ment doctrinal commun \u00e0 tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-\u00eatre, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se pr\u00e9dominante (\u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristot\u00e9liciens. Mais il est temps d\u2019entrer dans le vif du sujet.\r\nNous allons examiner six textes tir\u00e9s respectivement l\u2019un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d\u2019Ammonius ; apr\u00e8s en avoir donn\u00e9 la traduction (la mienne, en l\u2019absence d\u2019indication contraire), j\u2019en viendrai aux cons\u00e9quences de mon interpr\u00e9tation. [introduction p. 175-177]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LVbezb3omxhQNRC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":306,"full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1057,"section_of":310,"pages":"175-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":310,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme D\u00e9voil\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dixsaut1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"Pourquoi, comment, devient-on antiplatonicien ? A l'\u00e9vidence, en s'opposant au platonisme, d'embl\u00e9e le probl\u00e8me se complique, car il n'est pas certain apr\u00e8s tout que Platon, si obstin\u00e9ment absent de ses propres dialogues, si d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment anonyme, ait \u00e9t\u00e9 platonicien. Comment s'opposer \u00e0 qui ne parle jamais en son nom, pourquoi r\u00e9futer une doctrine que son auteur n'a jamais pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme telle ni revendiqu\u00e9e comme sienne et dont le sens semble pouvoir \u00eatre librement \u00e9labor\u00e9 par les adversaires du moment et pour les besoins de leur cause ? En quoi le platonisme autorise-t-il ces attaques globales et parfois \u00e9trangement violentes ? Peut-\u00eatre est-ce parce que chaque \u00e9poque croit y d\u00e9celer ce qu'elle tient pour la forme extr\u00eame de la d\u00e9mesure et de l'orgueil philosophiques, indiquant du m\u00eame coup les probl\u00e8mes et les attitudes jug\u00e9s par elle tol\u00e9rables en philosophie. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9zfyHBZbSdr0Iyv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":310,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Tradition de la pens\u00e9e classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}
Title | Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 91-112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes two kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, the reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without saying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla tonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, with which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often concerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to our understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself and also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a text at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this paper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be found in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this particular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on what will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in teresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius works in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the way in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech niques of interpretation. [p. 91] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"795","_score":null,"_source":{"id":795,"authors_free":[{"id":1173,"entry_id":795,"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}},{"id":2441,"entry_id":795,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes \r\ntwo kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, \r\nthe reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without \r\nsaying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, \r\nwith which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often \r\nconcerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to \r\nour understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself \r\nand also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a \r\ntext at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this \r\npaper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be \r\nfound in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this \r\nparticular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on \r\nwhat will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in\u00ad\r\nteresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius \r\nworks in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the \r\nway in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech\u00ad\r\nniques of interpretation. [p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":795,"section_of":214,"pages":"91-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}
Title | Soul Vehicles in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 173-188 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the ochêma—or ochêmata—the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius’ case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle. The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish: How many such vehicles there were. What they were made of. What was their function, and, related to this: What was their life expectancy. Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context? In considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"896","_score":null,"_source":{"id":896,"authors_free":[{"id":1322,"entry_id":896,"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}},{"id":2442,"entry_id":896,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"},"abstract":"There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the och\u00eama\u2014or och\u00eamata\u2014the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius\u2019 case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish:\r\n\r\n How many such vehicles there were.\r\n What they were made of.\r\n What was their function, and, related to this:\r\n What was their life expectancy.\r\n Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context?\r\n\r\nIn considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":896,"section_of":214,"pages":"173-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1993]}
Title | Metacommentary |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 267-281 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Annas, Julia |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius’ works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"646","_score":null,"_source":{"id":646,"authors_free":[{"id":924,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":925,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":415,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Annas, Julia","free_first_name":"Julia","free_last_name":"Annas","norm_person":{"id":415,"first_name":"Julia","last_name":"Annas","full_name":"Annas, Julia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/112065120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metacommentary","main_title":{"title":"Metacommentary"},"abstract":"Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius\u2019 works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":415,"full_name":"Annas, Julia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":646,"section_of":285,"pages":"267-281","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":285,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Annas1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is an annual publication which includes original articles on a wide range of topics in ancient philosophy, and review articles of major books. In this supplementary volume, a number of renowned scholars of Plato reflect upon their interpretative methods. Topics covered include the use of ancient authorities in interpreting Plato's dialogues, Plato's literary and rhetorical style, his arguments and characters, and his use of the dialogue form. The collection is not intended as a comprehensive survey of methodological approaches; rather it offers a number of different perspectives and clearly articulated interpretations by leading scholars in the field. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dS81MCQI85uHYdS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":285,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"X","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Encyclopédie philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques |
Pages | 319-321 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise |
Editor(s) | Jacob, André , Mattéi, Jean-François |
Translator(s) |
Ce néoplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe païen de l’Antiquité tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'Épictète ont été largement exploités comme une mine de renseignements sur l’histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les œuvres des présocratiques, des péripatéticiens et des stoïciens. Toutefois, à l’exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, ces œuvres n’ont pas, jusqu’ici, été étudiées dans leur ensemble d’une manière permettant de connaître le système philosophique de Simplicius lui-même dans ses détails. Des recherches récentes ont montré que, contrairement à ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l’ensemble de son œuvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son maître Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait développé le plus riche des systèmes néoplatoniciens, marqué par une différenciation ontologique poussée à l’extrême. Simplicius ne nous a laissé aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu’il a suivi à Alexandrie l’enseignement d’Ammonius, fils d’Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, à un lieu ou des lieux non spécifiés, l’enseignement de Damascius. Grâce à un ensemble d’autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu’à quelques indices contenus dans ses propres œuvres, nous pouvons compléter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est né en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a été élève d’Ammonius à Alexandrie avant 517 de notre ère et s’est retrouvé en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son maître), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diogène et Isidore de Gaza, à une date difficile à déterminer. On peut supposer un lien entre le séjour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l’interdiction, édictée par Justinien en 529, d’enseigner la philosophie et le droit à Athènes, bien qu’aucune source ne le précise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s’installer à Harrân (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l’école néoplatonicienne de cette ville, située en territoire byzantin. C’est là qu’il composa tous ses commentaires. Notons enfin que l’authenticité du Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d’Aristote a été mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le traité de Jamblique « Sur la secte de Pythagore » est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote et sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide. Œuvres principales de Simplicius : Commentaire sur le traité Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538. Commentaire aux Catégories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538. Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538. Étant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un résumé pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications générales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concrètes de la sképsis aux thèses de la logique, de la physique et de l’éthique. [the entire article] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"694","_score":null,"_source":{"id":694,"authors_free":[{"id":1032,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":141,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Franc\u0327oise ","free_first_name":"Franc\u0327oise ","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":{"id":141,"first_name":"Francoise ","last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1033,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":140,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Jacob","norm_person":{"id":140,"first_name":"Jacob","last_name":"Andr\u00e9 ","full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024554724","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1978,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":142,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","norm_person":{"id":142,"first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666606X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ce n\u00e9oplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe pa\u00efen de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te ont \u00e9t\u00e9 largement exploit\u00e9s comme une mine de renseignements sur l\u2019histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les \u0153uvres des pr\u00e9socratiques, des p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens et des sto\u00efciens. Toutefois, \u00e0 l\u2019exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, ces \u0153uvres n\u2019ont pas, jusqu\u2019ici, \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tudi\u00e9es dans leur ensemble d\u2019une mani\u00e8re permettant de conna\u00eetre le syst\u00e8me philosophique de Simplicius lui-m\u00eame dans ses d\u00e9tails.\r\n\r\nDes recherches r\u00e9centes ont montr\u00e9 que, contrairement \u00e0 ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l\u2019ensemble de son \u0153uvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 le plus riche des syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, marqu\u00e9 par une diff\u00e9renciation ontologique pouss\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne nous a laiss\u00e9 aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu\u2019il a suivi \u00e0 Alexandrie l\u2019enseignement d\u2019Ammonius, fils d\u2019Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, \u00e0 un lieu ou des lieux non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9s, l\u2019enseignement de Damascius. Gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 un ensemble d\u2019autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu\u2019\u00e0 quelques indices contenus dans ses propres \u0153uvres, nous pouvons compl\u00e9ter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est n\u00e9 en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie avant 517 de notre \u00e8re et s\u2019est retrouv\u00e9 en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son ma\u00eetre), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diog\u00e8ne et Isidore de Gaza, \u00e0 une date difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer.\r\n\r\nOn peut supposer un lien entre le s\u00e9jour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l\u2019interdiction, \u00e9dict\u00e9e par Justinien en 529, d\u2019enseigner la philosophie et le droit \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, bien qu\u2019aucune source ne le pr\u00e9cise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s\u2019installer \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de cette ville, situ\u00e9e en territoire byzantin. C\u2019est l\u00e0 qu\u2019il composa tous ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nNotons enfin que l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 du Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d\u2019Aristote a \u00e9t\u00e9 mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 de Jamblique \u00ab Sur la secte de Pythagore \u00bb est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote et sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide.\r\n\r\n\u0152uvres principales de Simplicius :\r\n\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533.\r\n Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538.\r\n\r\n\u00c9tant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications g\u00e9n\u00e9rales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concr\u00e8tes de la sk\u00e9psis aux th\u00e8ses de la logique, de la physique et de l\u2019\u00e9thique. [the entire article]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":141,"full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":140,"full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":142,"full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":694,"section_of":361,"pages":"319-321","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Encyclop\u00e9die philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mattei1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwmYyz8HeXbVYFD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":361,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses Universitaires de France","series":"","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
Title | 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 141-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco. The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22. Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place. The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position. The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V). The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
Title | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 63-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1526,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
Title | Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Les problèmes posés par l'édition critique des textes anciens et médiévaux |
Pages | 361-397 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand |
Editor(s) | Hamesse, Jacqueline |
Translator(s) |
Un des problèmes qui peuvent encombrer l’édition critique des commentaires anciens et médiévaux sur les grands traités qui ont fait autorité dans les écoles (traités d’Aristote, de Galien, de Ptolémée, etc.) concerne la manière dont les lemmes ou références au texte commenté doivent être présentés ; car bien qu’en règle générale on aperçoive assez vite si l’auteur a effectivement inséré des références pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d’une fois peu concordantes, voire très confuses. La forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu’en tête d’un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section commentée ou recourir à un système de lemmes abrégés, dont les principaux types seront énumérés ci-après. Mais ce qu’il importe de remarquer avant tout, c’est qu’en raison même de leur fonction de référence, les lemmes doivent être bien distingués des commentaires eux-mêmes ; le commentateur, s’il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les écrire en caractères un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secrétaire ou son éditeur de les écrire en rouge. Placés en tête des commentaires pour en faciliter l’étude et bien distingués de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont très exposés aux tentatives de remaniement et d’adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ultérieurs. Il peut paraître utile à un savant ou à un éditeur d’avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage commenté tout entier, en remplaçant ou complétant les lemmes abrégés écrits par l’auteur, ou d’assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organisé du commentaire, en ajoutant après les premiers mots du passage commenté, écrits par l’auteur, la formule jusqu’à, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent être abrégés par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a passé la commande possède déjà le traité commenté. Ainsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie très souvent d’un manuscrit à l’autre, voire d’une partie à l’autre à l’intérieur d’un même manuscrit, et l’éditeur d’un commentaire devra se mettre à la recherche de la forme que l’auteur lui-même leur a donnée. Cette préoccupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne mérite pas d’être considérée comme une sorte de surenchère critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement liée à une autre, bien plus importante, à savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme témoins indirects du texte commenté. Si l’étude critique révèle que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont été refaits, on ne sera plus tenté de penser que leur texte reflète l’état du texte commenté à l’époque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remaniées ou ajoutées ; seules les parties primitives seront jugées à même de nous informer sur le texte lu et cité par le commentateur, bien que là encore la facilité d’une adaptation ultérieure doive nous inciter à la prudence. De toute évidence, l’étude des lemmes ne présente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du traité commenté, mais seulement dans les cas où le commentateur est reconnu à juste titre comme un témoin très précieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d’Aristote) ou tout à fait privilégié du texte commenté. Mais même en dehors de cette perspective, l’étude des lemmes se révèle plus d’une fois très fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la méthode utilisée par le commentateur, mais encore sur la manière dont les commentaires ont été préparés et organisés pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous mène de temps à autre à des découvertes tout à fait inattendues. Le but du présent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux étaient complètement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1076","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1076,"authors_free":[{"id":1630,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1631,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":13,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","free_first_name":"Jacqueline ","free_last_name":"Hamesse","norm_person":{"id":13,"first_name":"Jacqueline ","last_name":"Hamesse","full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132262746","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Un des probl\u00e8mes qui peuvent encombrer l\u2019\u00e9dition critique des commentaires anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux sur les grands trait\u00e9s qui ont fait autorit\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles (trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, de Galien, de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e, etc.) concerne la mani\u00e8re dont les lemmes ou r\u00e9f\u00e9rences au texte comment\u00e9 doivent \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ; car bien qu\u2019en r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale on aper\u00e7oive assez vite si l\u2019auteur a effectivement ins\u00e9r\u00e9 des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d\u2019une fois peu concordantes, voire tr\u00e8s confuses.\r\n\r\nLa forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu\u2019en t\u00eate d\u2019un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section comment\u00e9e ou recourir \u00e0 un syst\u00e8me de lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s, dont les principaux types seront \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9s ci-apr\u00e8s. Mais ce qu\u2019il importe de remarquer avant tout, c\u2019est qu\u2019en raison m\u00eame de leur fonction de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, les lemmes doivent \u00eatre bien distingu\u00e9s des commentaires eux-m\u00eames ; le commentateur, s\u2019il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les \u00e9crire en caract\u00e8res un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secr\u00e9taire ou son \u00e9diteur de les \u00e9crire en rouge.\r\n\r\nPlac\u00e9s en t\u00eate des commentaires pour en faciliter l\u2019\u00e9tude et bien distingu\u00e9s de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont tr\u00e8s expos\u00e9s aux tentatives de remaniement et d\u2019adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ult\u00e9rieurs. Il peut para\u00eetre utile \u00e0 un savant ou \u00e0 un \u00e9diteur d\u2019avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage comment\u00e9 tout entier, en rempla\u00e7ant ou compl\u00e9tant les lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, ou d\u2019assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organis\u00e9 du commentaire, en ajoutant apr\u00e8s les premiers mots du passage comment\u00e9, \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, la formule jusqu\u2019\u00e0, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent \u00eatre abr\u00e9g\u00e9s par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a pass\u00e9 la commande poss\u00e8de d\u00e9j\u00e0 le trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9.\r\n\r\nAinsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie tr\u00e8s souvent d\u2019un manuscrit \u00e0 l\u2019autre, voire d\u2019une partie \u00e0 l\u2019autre \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un m\u00eame manuscrit, et l\u2019\u00e9diteur d\u2019un commentaire devra se mettre \u00e0 la recherche de la forme que l\u2019auteur lui-m\u00eame leur a donn\u00e9e. Cette pr\u00e9occupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne m\u00e9rite pas d\u2019\u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une sorte de surench\u00e8re critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement li\u00e9e \u00e0 une autre, bien plus importante, \u00e0 savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme t\u00e9moins indirects du texte comment\u00e9. Si l\u2019\u00e9tude critique r\u00e9v\u00e8le que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont \u00e9t\u00e9 refaits, on ne sera plus tent\u00e9 de penser que leur texte refl\u00e8te l\u2019\u00e9tat du texte comment\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remani\u00e9es ou ajout\u00e9es ; seules les parties primitives seront jug\u00e9es \u00e0 m\u00eame de nous informer sur le texte lu et cit\u00e9 par le commentateur, bien que l\u00e0 encore la facilit\u00e9 d\u2019une adaptation ult\u00e9rieure doive nous inciter \u00e0 la prudence.\r\n\r\nDe toute \u00e9vidence, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes ne pr\u00e9sente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9, mais seulement dans les cas o\u00f9 le commentateur est reconnu \u00e0 juste titre comme un t\u00e9moin tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d\u2019Aristote) ou tout \u00e0 fait privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 du texte comment\u00e9. Mais m\u00eame en dehors de cette perspective, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes se r\u00e9v\u00e8le plus d\u2019une fois tr\u00e8s fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la m\u00e9thode utilis\u00e9e par le commentateur, mais encore sur la mani\u00e8re dont les commentaires ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9s et organis\u00e9s pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous m\u00e8ne de temps \u00e0 autre \u00e0 des d\u00e9couvertes tout \u00e0 fait inattendues.\r\n\r\nLe but du pr\u00e9sent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux \u00e9taient compl\u00e8tement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":13,"full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1076,"section_of":278,"pages":"361-397","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":278,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hamesse1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"La meilleure mani\u00e8re d'introduire aux probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux est de pr\u00e9senter une s\u00e9rie de cas concrets illustrant les difficult\u00e9s inh\u00e9rentes \u00e0 ce type de travail et la complexit\u00e9 des \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00e0 prendre en consid\u00e9ration. Les aspects \u00e0 traiter sont multiples. L'accent a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de tenir compte du contexte historique qui a conditionn\u00e9 la transmission de l'oeuvre et des facteurs mat\u00e9riels qui sont intervenus dans la tradition. Appel a \u00e9t\u00e9 fait \u00e0 diff\u00e9rents sp\u00e9cialistes ayant rencontr\u00e9 des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques dans leurs travaux. Le volume contient des articles qui pr\u00e9sentent l'exp\u00e9rience de chercheurs qualifi\u00e9s dans des domaines pr\u00e9cis et qui mettent l'accent sur le point de vue m\u00e9thodologique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1sNOomXw6buIlXz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":278,"pubplace":"Louvain-la-Neuve","publisher":"Institute d'Etudes M\u00e9di\u00e9vales","series":"Textes, \u00c9tudes, Congr\u00e8s","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
Title | The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 175-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators—Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed—towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle. Aristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato’s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle’s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations. Thanks to Marinus’ Life of Proclus and Damascius’ Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato’s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or ‘minor’ mysteries. So, in directing Proclus’ studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and ‘does not leap over the threshold’; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato’s philosophy after studying Aristotle. I hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle’s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"640","_score":null,"_source":{"id":640,"authors_free":[{"id":909,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":910,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":911,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators\u2014Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed\u2014towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle.\r\n\r\nAristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato\u2019s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle\u2019s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations.\r\n\r\nThanks to Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus and Damascius\u2019 Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato\u2019s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or \u2018minor\u2019 mysteries.\r\n\r\nSo, in directing Proclus\u2019 studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and \u2018does not leap over the threshold\u2019; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato\u2019s philosophy after studying Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle\u2019s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":640,"section_of":354,"pages":"175-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}
Title | Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 165-173 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sheppard, Anne D. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle’s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought—a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call "imagination," at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle’s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle’s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor. It used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form "I imagine that P" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images. For example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with "non-paradigmatic sensory experiences"—phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai ("It looks like an X"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle’s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle’s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions. More recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum’s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as "the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception." Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image. My concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images. In this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima—those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus’ commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus’ own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus’ views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lzX0JUImw1D2csY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1021","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1021,"authors_free":[{"id":1537,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1538,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1539,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3","main_title":{"title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought\u2014a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call \"imagination,\" at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle\u2019s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle\u2019s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor.\r\n\r\nIt used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle\u2019s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form \"I imagine that P\" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images.\r\n\r\nFor example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with \"non-paradigmatic sensory experiences\"\u2014phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai (\"It looks like an X\"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle\u2019s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle\u2019s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions.\r\n\r\nMore recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum\u2019s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as \"the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception.\" Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image.\r\n\r\nMy concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima\u2014those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus\u2019 commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus\u2019 own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus\u2019 views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lzX0JUImw1D2csY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1021,"section_of":354,"pages":"165-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}
Title | Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 1-7 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kerferd, George B. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14–24 — 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows: "Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gnôseôs ê phronêseôs) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (tôn ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes." Aristotle’s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold: Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions. Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed. Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes. But there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated "the earliest natural philosophers." The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena. A resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle’s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrachê dieile tas peri geneseôs doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be: No generation at all. All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently. Most things are generated but not the primary substances. All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities. Whatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)—no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether. On the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here: "The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d." [introduction p. 1-3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"889","_score":null,"_source":{"id":889,"authors_free":[{"id":1309,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":215,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kerferd, George B.","free_first_name":"George B.","free_last_name":"Kerferd","norm_person":{"id":215,"first_name":" George B.","last_name":"Kerferd","full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158138547","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1310,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1311,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"},"abstract":"In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14\u201324 \u2014 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gn\u00f4se\u00f4s \u00ea phron\u00ease\u00f4s) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (t\u00f4n ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes.\"\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold:\r\n\r\n Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions.\r\n Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed.\r\n Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes.\r\n\r\nBut there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated \"the earliest natural philosophers.\" The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena.\r\n\r\nA resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle\u2019s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrach\u00ea dieile tas peri genese\u00f4s doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be:\r\n\r\n No generation at all.\r\n All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently.\r\n Most things are generated but not the primary substances.\r\n All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities.\r\n\r\nWhatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)\u2014no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether.\r\n\r\nOn the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here:\r\n\r\n\"The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d.\" [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":215,"full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":889,"section_of":354,"pages":"1-7","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}
Title | Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 191-205 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of Tübingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous poietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos never occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. 430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators subsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, even if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. Similarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in the pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous poietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, however, though the expression occurs in Aristotle’s De anima, its reference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often appears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do with the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous literature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous pathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This paper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- platonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and clarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Di0rd034eeOOHeY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"894","_score":null,"_source":{"id":894,"authors_free":[{"id":1317,"entry_id":894,"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}},{"id":1319,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1320,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"},"abstract":"In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of \r\nT\u00fcbingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous \r\npoietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos \r\nnever occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. \r\n430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators \r\nsubsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, \r\neven if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. \r\nSimilarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in \r\nthe pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous \r\npoietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, \r\nhowever, though the expression occurs in Aristotle\u2019s De anima, its \r\nreference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often \r\nappears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do \r\nwith the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous \r\nliterature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous \r\npathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This \r\npaper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- \r\nplatonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and \r\nclarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Di0rd034eeOOHeY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":894,"section_of":354,"pages":"191-205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1991]}
Title | L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin |
Pages | 127-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
À l’intérieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l’on désigne globalement sous le nom de néo-platonisme et qui se développe du IIIe au VIe siècle après J.-C., on distingue des écoles diverses. Fondé à Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 à 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs passèrent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le néo-platonisme se répandit d’abord en Asie Mineure et spécialement à Apamée et Antioche, où enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci réussit à amalgamer la métaphysique plotinienne et les théories et pratiques de la théurgie en vogue dans l’Orient grec. Cette synthèse fournit à l’empereur Julien l’Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion païenne qu’il tenta de faire triompher sous son règne (361-363). De cette école syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d’inégale valeur : d’une part, l’école de Pergame, franchement adonnée à la magie et délaissant entièrement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d’autre part, l’école d’Athènes, qui parviendra à se greffer sur la souche de l’antique Académie de Platon au début du Ve siècle. À peu près au même moment, un autre rejeton paraîtra à Alexandrie, et cette école survivra même à celle d’Athènes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe siècle tout le capital du néo-platonisme. [introduction p. 126] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1174","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1174,"authors_free":[{"id":1749,"entry_id":1174,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"\u00c0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l\u2019on d\u00e9signe globalement sous le nom de n\u00e9o-platonisme et qui se d\u00e9veloppe du IIIe au VIe si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C., on distingue des \u00e9coles diverses.\r\n\r\nFond\u00e9 \u00e0 Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 \u00e0 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs pass\u00e8rent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le n\u00e9o-platonisme se r\u00e9pandit d\u2019abord en Asie Mineure et sp\u00e9cialement \u00e0 Apam\u00e9e et Antioche, o\u00f9 enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 amalgamer la m\u00e9taphysique plotinienne et les th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la th\u00e9urgie en vogue dans l\u2019Orient grec. Cette synth\u00e8se fournit \u00e0 l\u2019empereur Julien l\u2019Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion pa\u00efenne qu\u2019il tenta de faire triompher sous son r\u00e8gne (361-363).\r\n\r\nDe cette \u00e9cole syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d\u2019in\u00e9gale valeur : d\u2019une part, l\u2019\u00e9cole de Pergame, franchement adonn\u00e9e \u00e0 la magie et d\u00e9laissant enti\u00e8rement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, qui parviendra \u00e0 se greffer sur la souche de l\u2019antique Acad\u00e9mie de Platon au d\u00e9but du Ve si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s au m\u00eame moment, un autre rejeton para\u00eetra \u00e0 Alexandrie, et cette \u00e9cole survivra m\u00eame \u00e0 celle d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe si\u00e8cle tout le capital du n\u00e9o-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1174,"section_of":1461,"pages":"127-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1461,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Saffrey1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
Title | Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch) |
Pages | 21-47 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1182","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1182,"authors_free":[{"id":1755,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1974,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens","main_title":{"title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"},"abstract":"The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1182,"section_of":179,"pages":"21-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":179,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1990e","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
Title | The school of Alexander? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 83-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD. As a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which. We know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle’s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil’s record of his teacher’s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context—in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points. For the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study. With Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace—however controversially—his influence on later thinkers. But we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander’s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus’ school. It is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle. These writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on nature’; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai êthikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.’ A further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander’s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or ‘makeweight’ by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost. The circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled. It is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander’s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1027","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1027,"authors_free":[{"id":1551,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1552,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The school of Alexander?","main_title":{"title":"The school of Alexander?"},"abstract":"Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.\r\nAs a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.\r\n\r\nWe know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil\u2019s record of his teacher\u2019s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context\u2014in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.\r\n\r\nFor the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.\r\nWith Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace\u2014however controversially\u2014his influence on later thinkers.\r\n\r\nBut we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander\u2019s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus\u2019 school.\r\n\r\nIt is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.\r\n\r\nThese writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on nature\u2019; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai \u00eathikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.\u2019\r\n\r\nA further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander\u2019s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or \u2018makeweight\u2019 by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.\r\n\r\nThe circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.\r\n\r\nIt is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander\u2019s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1027,"section_of":1453,"pages":"83-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
Title | Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 113-123 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
[B]oth the content of Themistius’ works, and such evidence as we have of the commentators’ attitudes to him, show that he was predominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies of his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not invalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the last major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For him, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of those who know but he, and Socrates, ‘innanzi agli altri piu presso gli stanno’. [Conclusion, p. 123] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"875","_score":null,"_source":{"id":875,"authors_free":[{"id":1285,"entry_id":875,"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}},{"id":1286,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?","main_title":{"title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"},"abstract":"[B]oth the content of Themistius\u2019 works, and such evidence as we \r\nhave of the commentators\u2019 attitudes to him, show that he was \r\npredominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies \r\nof his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not \r\ninvalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the \r\nlast major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For \r\nhim, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of \r\nthose who know but he, and Socrates, \u2018innanzi agli altri piu presso gli \r\nstanno\u2019. [Conclusion, p. 123]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":875,"section_of":1453,"pages":"113-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
Title | The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 233-274 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verrycken, Koenraad |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming—more or less conjecturally—a duality in Philoponus’ philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of ‘religious conviction’ only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another. In my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to ‘project’ the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ. To start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of ‘Philoponus 1’ and ‘Philoponus 2’, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus’ biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author’s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":449,"authors_free":[{"id":601,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":347,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","free_first_name":"Koenraad","free_last_name":"Verrycken","norm_person":{"id":347,"first_name":"Koenraad","last_name":"Verrycken","full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048689964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":602,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology","main_title":{"title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"},"abstract":"The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming\u2014more or less conjecturally\u2014a duality in Philoponus\u2019 philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of \u2018religious conviction\u2019 only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another.\r\n\r\nIn my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to \u2018project\u2019 the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ.\r\n\r\nTo start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of \u2018Philoponus 1\u2019 and \u2018Philoponus 2\u2019, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus\u2019 biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":347,"full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":449,"section_of":1453,"pages":"233-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
Title | Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) |
Pages | 83-112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Federici-Vescovini, Graziella |
Editor(s) | Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1136","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1136,"authors_free":[{"id":1710,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":487,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","free_first_name":"Graziella","free_last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","norm_person":{"id":487,"first_name":"Graziella","last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128950552","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2478,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2479,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":487,"full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1136,"section_of":326,"pages":"83-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}
Title | Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
Pages | 133-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter |
Translator(s) |
Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert. Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne. Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme. In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}
Title | Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Ionian Philosophy |
Pages | 369-374 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sylvestre, Maria Luisa |
Editor(s) | Boudouris, Konstantin, J. |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1385","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1385,"authors_free":[{"id":2137,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":327,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Sylvestre","norm_person":{"id":327,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Sylvestre","full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2138,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":327,"full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1385,"section_of":238,"pages":"369-374","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":238,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ionian Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Boudouris1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}
Title | Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) |
Pages | 57-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy |
Translator(s) |
On peut difficilement expliquer l’utilisation privilégiée des traductions de Moerbeke dont témoigne l’œuvre de saint Thomas, si on n’admet pas que les deux hommes aient été en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commencé son projet de traduction sans l’initiative ou l’encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confrère (probablement lors d’une rencontre à Viterbe), il a commencé à utiliser ses traductions. Il est même probable qu’il a commandé quelques fois lui-même une traduction. Les données manquent pour pouvoir parler d’une véritable collaboration entre les deux hommes. D’ailleurs, je n’ai pas l’impression que leurs intérêts intellectuels étaient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un témoignage indirect sur la pensée de Guillaume, il semble qu’il avait une préférence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un intérêt particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l’astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalité intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a dédié son traité sur la composition de l’astrolabe) qu’avec le théologien-philosophe Thomas d’Aquin. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confrère. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d’Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examinés ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce témoignage. Mais, comme il arrive fréquemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du héros principal qu’on a tendance à réduire l’activité des contemporains à celle de « collaborateurs » et à minimiser leur apport original. D’où la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L’étude de l’histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont obligés à limiter nettement la portée de ce témoignage. Cette étude a restitué ainsi à Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalité intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirmé également qu’il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition). Thomas a très vite compris l’importance du travail de son confrère. Il en a profité le premier, et c’est probablement grâce à son autorité que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commencé à circuler à Paris, et à partir de là dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3D0JB4FJderQiIl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1388","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1388,"authors_free":[{"id":2147,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2148,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2149,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"},"abstract":"On peut difficilement expliquer l\u2019utilisation privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e des traductions de Moerbeke dont t\u00e9moigne l\u2019\u0153uvre de saint Thomas, si on n\u2019admet pas que les deux hommes aient \u00e9t\u00e9 en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commenc\u00e9 son projet de traduction sans l\u2019initiative ou l\u2019encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confr\u00e8re (probablement lors d\u2019une rencontre \u00e0 Viterbe), il a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser ses traductions. Il est m\u00eame probable qu\u2019il a command\u00e9 quelques fois lui-m\u00eame une traduction. Les donn\u00e9es manquent pour pouvoir parler d\u2019une v\u00e9ritable collaboration entre les deux hommes.\r\n\r\nD\u2019ailleurs, je n\u2019ai pas l\u2019impression que leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats intellectuels \u00e9taient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un t\u00e9moignage indirect sur la pens\u00e9e de Guillaume, il semble qu\u2019il avait une pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un int\u00e9r\u00eat particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l\u2019astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalit\u00e9 intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a d\u00e9di\u00e9 son trait\u00e9 sur la composition de l\u2019astrolabe) qu\u2019avec le th\u00e9ologien-philosophe Thomas d\u2019Aquin.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d\u2019Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examin\u00e9s ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce t\u00e9moignage. Mais, comme il arrive fr\u00e9quemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du h\u00e9ros principal qu\u2019on a tendance \u00e0 r\u00e9duire l\u2019activit\u00e9 des contemporains \u00e0 celle de \u00ab collaborateurs \u00bb et \u00e0 minimiser leur apport original.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont oblig\u00e9s \u00e0 limiter nettement la port\u00e9e de ce t\u00e9moignage. Cette \u00e9tude a restitu\u00e9 ainsi \u00e0 Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalit\u00e9 intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirm\u00e9 \u00e9galement qu\u2019il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition).\r\n\r\nThomas a tr\u00e8s vite compris l\u2019importance du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Il en a profit\u00e9 le premier, et c\u2019est probablement gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 son autorit\u00e9 que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 circuler \u00e0 Paris, et \u00e0 partir de l\u00e0 dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3D0JB4FJderQiIl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1388,"section_of":326,"pages":"57-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}
Title | Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75 |
Pages | 103-119 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J. |
Translator(s) |
What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"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}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Pages | 92-117 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
Title | La relation chez Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 113-147 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Luna, Concetta |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B73LnGwsUzauanV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1116","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1116,"authors_free":[{"id":1685,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1686,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La relation chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La relation chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B73LnGwsUzauanV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1116,"section_of":171,"pages":"113-147","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
Pages | 955-974 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
Translator(s) |
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985) |
Pages | 305-318 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Translator(s) |
In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid’s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage students to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates’ remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus’ famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus’ philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1211","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1211,"authors_free":[{"id":1792,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1793,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2119,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"},"abstract":"In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage \r\nstudents to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates\u2019 remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus\u2019 famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus\u2019 philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1211,"section_of":159,"pages":"305-318","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 225-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term "eidos" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of "eidos." The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"669","_score":null,"_source":{"id":669,"authors_free":[{"id":980,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":981,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term \"eidos\" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of \"eidos.\" The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":669,"section_of":171,"pages":"225-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 183-221 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage exégétique conçu comme un hymne au Démiurge, présente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance céleste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un mélange des cimes (akrotêtes) des quatre éléments, c'est-à-dire un mélange des quatre éléments dans leur état le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce mélange prédomine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu. Cette doctrine n'est pas, quant à ses matériaux conceptuels, une création neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de manière plus détaillée encore, on la rencontre dans le troisième livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Timée. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interprétation générale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une démonstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une réaction face aux théories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'était appuyé sur le Timée pour réfuter la doctrine aristotélicienne de la quintessence et de l'éternité du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute différence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire. Réfutant les théories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius réaffirme la divinité, la transcendance et l’éternité du ciel, dans une exégèse qui vise à harmoniser (et non à opposer) le Timée et le De caelo. Cette exégèse est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'âme (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le Démiurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l’un des contenus les plus précieux de la révélation. Celle-ci ne peut être procurée aux lecteurs momentanément abusés par Philopon qu’au terme d’une purification préparatoire, qui est la réfutation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem. Ainsi, la polémique de Simplicius est orientée vers une visée indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpréter correctement le De caelo d’Aristote, ce n’est pas seulement acquérir des connaissances intellectuelles, c’est aussi, et surtout, s’élever par la pensée (mais de manière « vécue ») jusqu’au monde et au Démiurge, c’est leur adresser une prière. Au sacrilège blasphématoire du chrétien Philopon répond la liturgie néoplatonicienne, juste célébration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"688","_score":null,"_source":{"id":688,"authors_free":[{"id":1022,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1023,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel","main_title":{"title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"},"abstract":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique con\u00e7u comme un hymne au D\u00e9miurge, pr\u00e9sente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un m\u00e9lange des cimes (akrot\u00eates) des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, c'est-\u00e0-dire un m\u00e9lange des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments dans leur \u00e9tat le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce m\u00e9lange pr\u00e9domine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu.\r\n\r\nCette doctrine n'est pas, quant \u00e0 ses mat\u00e9riaux conceptuels, une cr\u00e9ation neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de mani\u00e8re plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e encore, on la rencontre dans le troisi\u00e8me livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Tim\u00e9e. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interpr\u00e9tation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une d\u00e9monstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une r\u00e9action face aux th\u00e9ories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'\u00e9tait appuy\u00e9 sur le Tim\u00e9e pour r\u00e9futer la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la quintessence et de l'\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute diff\u00e9rence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire.\r\n\r\nR\u00e9futant les th\u00e9ories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius r\u00e9affirme la divinit\u00e9, la transcendance et l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du ciel, dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui vise \u00e0 harmoniser (et non \u00e0 opposer) le Tim\u00e9e et le De caelo. Cette ex\u00e9g\u00e8se est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'\u00e2me (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le D\u00e9miurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l\u2019un des contenus les plus pr\u00e9cieux de la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation. Celle-ci ne peut \u00eatre procur\u00e9e aux lecteurs momentan\u00e9ment abus\u00e9s par Philopon qu\u2019au terme d\u2019une purification pr\u00e9paratoire, qui est la r\u00e9futation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem.\r\n\r\nAinsi, la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius est orient\u00e9e vers une vis\u00e9e indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpr\u00e9ter correctement le De caelo d\u2019Aristote, ce n\u2019est pas seulement acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances intellectuelles, c\u2019est aussi, et surtout, s\u2019\u00e9lever par la pens\u00e9e (mais de mani\u00e8re \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb) jusqu\u2019au monde et au D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est leur adresser une pri\u00e8re. Au sacril\u00e8ge blasph\u00e9matoire du chr\u00e9tien Philopon r\u00e9pond la liturgie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, juste c\u00e9l\u00e9bration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":688,"section_of":171,"pages":"183-221","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 249-285 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Nous pouvons donc résumer en quelques mots le résultat de nos recherches. La division des écrits d’Aristote, telle quelle est présentée dans les commentaires néoplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensemble, un pur produit de la philosophie néoplatonicienne, produit qui intègre néanmoins quelques éléments qui remontent à une époque antérieure à cette philosophie. Ce qui me paraît être typiquement et exclusivement néoplatonicien, c’est la division des écrits aristotéliciens en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux. D’abord, la place des Lettres au début de la liste est une particularité que la division néoplatonicienne ne partage, à ma connaissance, avec aucune autre liste non seulement d’écrits aristotéliciens, mais aussi d’écrits de n’importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la catégorie des écrits intermédiaires ne peut avoir de sens qu’à l’intérieur du système néoplatonicien, car elle sert surtout à se débarrasser d’un certain nombre d’écrits bio logiques d’Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n’avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique néoplatonicien. Pour les péripatéticiens au con traire, ces écrits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l’apprend au début de son commentaire sur la Physique128, où il reproduit le classement péripatéticien des écrits physiques d’Aristote. Pour les péripatéticiens, comme d’ailleurs pour n’importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de séparer les écrits d’Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en deux catégories, l’une qui comprendrait des écrits «intermédiaires», l’autre qui rassemblerait les écrits physiques et correspondrait à une subdivision des écrits généraux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette séparation n’était possible que dans la perspective de l’ontologie néoplatonicienne. Il y a d’ailleurs confusion des deux systèmes dans la division de David. Il respecte d’abord la division néoplatonicienne en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux en donnant des exemples adéquats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive à la rubrique physique des écrits théorétiques, il suit, en énumérant des exemples, la liste péripatéticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des écrits d’Aristote qui se trouvait à la suite de sa biographie. Il répète donc quelques titres qu’il avait auparavant classés dans les écrits intermédiaires et ajoute bon nombre de traités qui, selon le point de vue néoplatonicien, n’ont rien à voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GosX6JCGE0N12qC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":697,"authors_free":[{"id":1036,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1037,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons donc r\u00e9sumer en quelques mots le r\u00e9sultat de nos recherches. La division des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote, telle quelle est pr\u00e9sen\u00adt\u00e9e dans les commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem\u00adble, un pur produit de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, produit qui int\u00e8gre n\u00e9anmoins quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui remontent \u00e0 une \u00e9poque ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 cette philosophie. Ce qui me para\u00eet \u00eatre typiquement et exclusivement n\u00e9oplatonicien, c\u2019est la division des \u00e9crits aristot\u00e9li\u00adciens en \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. D\u2019abord, la \r\nplace des Lettres au d\u00e9but de la liste est une particularit\u00e9 que la divi\u00adsion n\u00e9oplatonicienne ne partage, \u00e0 ma connaissance, avec aucune \r\nautre liste non seulement d\u2019\u00e9crits aristot\u00e9liciens, mais aussi d\u2019\u00e9crits de n\u2019importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la cat\u00e9gorie des \u00e9crits interm\u00e9di\u00adaires ne peut avoir de sens qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien, car elle sert surtout \u00e0 se d\u00e9barrasser d\u2019un certain nombre d\u2019\u00e9crits bio\u00ad\r\nlogiques d\u2019Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n\u2019avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens au con\u00ad\r\ntraire, ces \u00e9crits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l\u2019apprend au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur la Physique128, o\u00f9 il reproduit le classement p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien des \u00e9crits physiques d\u2019Aristote. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, \r\ncomme d\u2019ailleurs pour n\u2019importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de s\u00e9parer les \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en \r\ndeux cat\u00e9gories, l\u2019une qui comprendrait des \u00e9crits \u00abinterm\u00e9diaires\u00bb, l\u2019autre qui rassemblerait les \u00e9crits physiques et correspondrait \u00e0 une \r\nsubdivision des \u00e9crits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette s\u00e9paration n\u2019\u00e9tait possible que dans la perspective de l\u2019ontologie \r\nn\u00e9oplatonicienne. Il y a d\u2019ailleurs confusion des deux syst\u00e8mes dans la division de David. Il respecte d\u2019abord la division n\u00e9oplatonicienne \r\nen \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en donnant des exemples ad\u00e9quats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive \u00e0 la \r\nrubrique physique des \u00e9crits th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques, il suit, en \u00e9num\u00e9rant des exemples, la liste p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote qui se trouvait \u00e0 la suite de sa biographie. Il r\u00e9p\u00e8te donc quelques titres qu\u2019il avait auparavant class\u00e9s dans les \u00e9crits \r\ninterm\u00e9diaires et ajoute bon nombre de trait\u00e9s qui, selon le point de vue n\u00e9oplatonicien, n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GosX6JCGE0N12qC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":697,"section_of":189,"pages":"249-285","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories” |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 61-90 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"709","_score":null,"_source":{"id":709,"authors_free":[{"id":1057,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1058,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"},"abstract":"Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":709,"section_of":171,"pages":"61-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 97-123 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus’ ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or ‘Demiurge.’ Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrotêtes) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire. My aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De caelo. It is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius’ and his reader’s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus’ spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius’ attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious. A correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle’s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RJi3pyBneebP54s |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"712","_score":null,"_source":{"id":712,"authors_free":[{"id":1062,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2012,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens"},"abstract":"I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus\u2019 ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or \u2018Demiurge.\u2019 Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrot\u00eates) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire.\r\n\r\nMy aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s De caelo.\r\n\r\nIt is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius\u2019 and his reader\u2019s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus\u2019 spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus\u2019 Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius\u2019 attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious.\r\n\r\nA correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RJi3pyBneebP54s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":712,"section_of":184,"pages":"97-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 84-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wolff, Michael |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory can be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, but rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we need not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to new observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to ask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory originally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are exhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such a problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, could not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, times were changing. [Conclusion p. 120] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"720","_score":null,"_source":{"id":720,"authors_free":[{"id":1073,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1074,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"},"abstract":"If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory \r\ncan be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, \r\nbut rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we \r\nneed not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to \r\nnew observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to \r\nask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory \r\noriginally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are \r\nexhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such \r\na problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, \r\ncould not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, \r\ntimes were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":720,"section_of":1383,"pages":"84-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 246-266 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tarán, Leonardo |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"726","_score":null,"_source":{"id":726,"authors_free":[{"id":1085,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1086,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":726,"section_of":171,"pages":"246-266","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 210-230 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schmitt, Charles Bernard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
As it is generally accepted, the term ‘Renaissance’ refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the ‘revival’ is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient ‘literary’ texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the ‘Renaissance’ was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality. One aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared. But it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available. The need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio’s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts—and generally delayed by only a few years—was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period. In reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi’s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact—in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology—has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed. During the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle—which for them meant philosophy tout court—frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126–98), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462–1525), and Soto (1494/5–1560), among many others. Particularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the ‘new science’ of the seventeenth century. Thus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible. Before turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian’s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ub0AryY729JHN5w |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1037","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1037,"authors_free":[{"id":1571,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":284,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","free_first_name":"Charles Bernard","free_last_name":"Schmitt","norm_person":{"id":284,"first_name":"Charles Bernard","last_name":"Schmitt","full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118846744","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1572,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century"},"abstract":"As it is generally accepted, the term \u2018Renaissance\u2019 refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the \u2018revival\u2019 is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient \u2018literary\u2019 texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero\u2019s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the \u2018Renaissance\u2019 was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality.\r\n\r\nOne aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared.\r\n\r\nBut it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available.\r\n\r\nThe need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio\u2019s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts\u2014and generally delayed by only a few years\u2014was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period.\r\n\r\nIn reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi\u2019s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact\u2014in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology\u2014has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed.\r\n\r\nDuring the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle\u2014which for them meant philosophy tout court\u2014frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126\u201398), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225\u201374), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462\u20131525), and Soto (1494\/5\u20131560), among many others.\r\n\r\nParticularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the \u2018new science\u2019 of the seventeenth century.\r\n\r\nThus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible.\r\n\r\nBefore turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian\u2019s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ub0AryY729JHN5w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":284,"full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1037,"section_of":184,"pages":"210-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 215-232 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tarán, Leonardo |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander’s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander’s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"797","_score":null,"_source":{"id":797,"authors_free":[{"id":1176,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1177,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N","main_title":{"title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"},"abstract":"The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander\u2019s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander\u2019s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":797,"section_of":189,"pages":"215-232","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 120-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Henry, Paul |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Les premières apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement à Plotin traitent du nombre des catégories, mais plus précisément sous l’aspect du rapport des catégories du monde intelligible à celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribuées à Plotin. D’un monde à l’autre, les catégories sont-elles les mêmes ou différentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les mêmes, les autres différentes ? Sont-elles en nombre égal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C’est le problème préliminaire qu’examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier traité VI 1, au début du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisième fois, au début du chapitre 5 de son troisième traité, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4. S’y réfèrent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l’une sous trois formes différentes – ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes – et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Ennéades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin à celui de ses prédécesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l’un de Dexippe, l’autre de Simplicius. Les relations entre tous ces textes étant fort compliquées, il est utile de les énumérer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l’ordre où je les étudie : 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate) 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin) 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin) 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin) F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate) F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l’ouvrage) (Plotin) 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin) 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4 F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme) Bien que, au début, ces distinctions paraissent compliquées, la suite montrera qu’elles aident à clarifier les questions. Je signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribué au « très divin Plotin » par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4. Nous finirons notre chapitre par un texte très court relatif au problème de l’opposé du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (τις) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (τις), et qui, faisant partie d’une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2. Le tout est un chassé-croisé de références, un enchevêtrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l’écrit, l’oral, les sources, à peu près inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire. Dans ce fouillis, je vais m’efforcer d’introduire un peu d’ordre et de clarté. Patiemment, car il s’agit bien d’un jeu de patience, je répartirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux séries, celle des reportata de l’enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F). Avec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilité, je compte récupérer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l’oral, deux fragments très probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines. Dès les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux problèmes qui nous intéressent et cela, on l’a dit, dans une complexité plus grande qu’ailleurs. Le problème fondamental des rapports de l’écrit et de l’oral. Les limites entre l’un et l’autre sont parfois indécises, incertaines. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’oral, quand oral il y a, éclaire considérablement l’écrit, sorte de commentaire ou de résumé anticipé. Le problème de l’indépendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur complémentarité. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fidèle à la formulation de l’aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire même le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avisé s’apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment dépendre de Dexippe ; il paraît ne jamais l’utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n’apparaît qu’une seule fois, et cela dans la Préface, p. 2,25, où Simplicius énumère les commentateurs des Catégories, alors qu’ailleurs il n’a pas honte de citer fidèlement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique. Enfin, le problème des sources de Plotin. Sources de l’oral ou de l’écrit ou de l’un et de l’autre. Ici même, par deux fois, un texte attribué par Simplicius à Plotin est attribué aussi, par lui, aux prédécesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n’est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare. Les deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides – ce ne sera pas toujours le cas – sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifiées, citées sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d’écrire « quelques-uns », là même où nous savons pertinemment qu’il s’agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu’une partie au moins des apories, tout en étant sûrement plotiniennes, n’ont aucun parallèle dans les Ennéades et proviennent donc de l’oral. [introduction p. 120-122] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"799","_score":null,"_source":{"id":799,"authors_free":[{"id":1179,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":175,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":175,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1180,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les premi\u00e8res apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement \u00e0 Plotin traitent du nombre des cat\u00e9gories, mais plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment sous l\u2019aspect du rapport des cat\u00e9gories du monde intelligible \u00e0 celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribu\u00e9es \u00e0 Plotin. D\u2019un monde \u00e0 l\u2019autre, les cat\u00e9gories sont-elles les m\u00eames ou diff\u00e9rentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les m\u00eames, les autres diff\u00e9rentes ? Sont-elles en nombre \u00e9gal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C\u2019est le probl\u00e8me pr\u00e9liminaire qu\u2019examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier trait\u00e9 VI 1, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisi\u00e8me fois, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 5 de son troisi\u00e8me trait\u00e9, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4.\r\n\r\nS\u2019y r\u00e9f\u00e8rent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l\u2019une sous trois formes diff\u00e9rentes \u2013 ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes \u2013 et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Enn\u00e9ades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin \u00e0 celui de ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l\u2019un de Dexippe, l\u2019autre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLes relations entre tous ces textes \u00e9tant fort compliqu\u00e9es, il est utile de les \u00e9num\u00e9rer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l\u2019ordre o\u00f9 je les \u00e9tudie :\r\n\r\n 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate)\r\n 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin)\r\n 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin)\r\n 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin)\r\n F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate)\r\n F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l\u2019ouvrage) (Plotin)\r\n 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin)\r\n 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4\r\n F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme)\r\n\r\nBien que, au d\u00e9but, ces distinctions paraissent compliqu\u00e9es, la suite montrera qu\u2019elles aident \u00e0 clarifier les questions.\r\n\r\nJe signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribu\u00e9 au \u00ab tr\u00e8s divin Plotin \u00bb par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4.\r\n\r\nNous finirons notre chapitre par un texte tr\u00e8s court relatif au probl\u00e8me de l\u2019oppos\u00e9 du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), et qui, faisant partie d\u2019une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2.\r\n\r\nLe tout est un chass\u00e9-crois\u00e9 de r\u00e9f\u00e9rences, un enchev\u00eatrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l\u2019\u00e9crit, l\u2019oral, les sources, \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire.\r\n\r\nDans ce fouillis, je vais m\u2019efforcer d\u2019introduire un peu d\u2019ordre et de clart\u00e9. Patiemment, car il s\u2019agit bien d\u2019un jeu de patience, je r\u00e9partirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux s\u00e9ries, celle des reportata de l\u2019enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F).\r\n\r\nAvec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilit\u00e9, je compte r\u00e9cup\u00e9rer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l\u2019oral, deux fragments tr\u00e8s probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux probl\u00e8mes qui nous int\u00e9ressent et cela, on l\u2019a dit, dans une complexit\u00e9 plus grande qu\u2019ailleurs.\r\n\r\n Le probl\u00e8me fondamental des rapports de l\u2019\u00e9crit et de l\u2019oral. Les limites entre l\u2019un et l\u2019autre sont parfois ind\u00e9cises, incertaines. Ce qui est s\u00fbr, c\u2019est que l\u2019oral, quand oral il y a, \u00e9claire consid\u00e9rablement l\u2019\u00e9crit, sorte de commentaire ou de r\u00e9sum\u00e9 anticip\u00e9.\r\n Le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur compl\u00e9mentarit\u00e9. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fid\u00e8le \u00e0 la formulation de l\u2019aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire m\u00eame le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avis\u00e9 s\u2019apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment d\u00e9pendre de Dexippe ; il para\u00eet ne jamais l\u2019utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n\u2019appara\u00eet qu\u2019une seule fois, et cela dans la Pr\u00e9face, p. 2,25, o\u00f9 Simplicius \u00e9num\u00e8re les commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories, alors qu\u2019ailleurs il n\u2019a pas honte de citer fid\u00e8lement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique.\r\n Enfin, le probl\u00e8me des sources de Plotin. Sources de l\u2019oral ou de l\u2019\u00e9crit ou de l\u2019un et de l\u2019autre. Ici m\u00eame, par deux fois, un texte attribu\u00e9 par Simplicius \u00e0 Plotin est attribu\u00e9 aussi, par lui, aux pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n\u2019est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare.\r\n\r\nLes deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides \u2013 ce ne sera pas toujours le cas \u2013 sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifi\u00e9es, cit\u00e9es sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d\u2019\u00e9crire \u00ab quelques-uns \u00bb, l\u00e0 m\u00eame o\u00f9 nous savons pertinemment qu\u2019il s\u2019agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu\u2019une partie au moins des apories, tout en \u00e9tant s\u00fbrement plotiniennes, n\u2019ont aucun parall\u00e8le dans les Enn\u00e9ades et proviennent donc de l\u2019oral. [introduction p. 120-122]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":175,"full_name":"Henry, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":799,"section_of":189,"pages":"120-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 560-583 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ebert, Theodor |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Abhandlung über die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: "Daß Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zurück zukommen, für seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles berufen kann, dürfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, der bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenständen charakterisie ren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, Monaden nämlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mißverständnis eines aristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren müssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen Textes. Dieses Mißverständnis ist begünstigt worden durch eine Ar gumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen tour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia‘ einen in gewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht." (p. 582) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"801","_score":null,"_source":{"id":801,"authors_free":[{"id":1183,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":76,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebert, Theodor","free_first_name":"Theodor","free_last_name":"Ebert","norm_person":{"id":76,"first_name":"Theodor","last_name":"Ebert","full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115820787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2096,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz","main_title":{"title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"},"abstract":"Abhandlung \u00fcber die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: \"Da\u00df Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zur\u00fcck\u00ad\r\nzukommen, f\u00fcr seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles \r\nberufen kann, d\u00fcrfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, \r\nder bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenst\u00e4nden charakterisie\u00ad\r\nren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, \r\nMonaden n\u00e4mlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis eines \r\naristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren \r\nm\u00fcssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen \r\nTextes. Dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis ist beg\u00fcnstigt worden durch eine Ar\u00ad\r\ngumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen \r\ntour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia\u2018 einen in \r\ngewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht.\" (p. 582)","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":76,"full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":801,"section_of":189,"pages":"560-583","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 90-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta tors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could hardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied at other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the stimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a clearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved accidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the appetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a few pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the question whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per ception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus’ account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one piece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer picture of how far the different commentators were prepared to accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"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":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 197-209 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in the fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle’s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, ‘more sharply than anyone’ (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus’doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a particular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evangélica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus’ adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus’ doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"430","_score":null,"_source":{"id":430,"authors_free":[{"id":580,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":581,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"},"abstract":"Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in \r\nthe fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, \u2018more sharply than anyone\u2019 (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus\u2019doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a \r\nparticular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evang\u00e9lica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus\u2019 adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus\u2019 doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":430,"section_of":1383,"pages":"197-209","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Simplicius et l'école' éléate |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 166-182 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cordero, Néstor-Luis |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1278","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1278,"authors_free":[{"id":1867,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2346,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"},"abstract":"This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1278,"section_of":171,"pages":"166-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 40-57 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tardieu, Michel |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
L’ordre des saisons adopté par Simplicius pour énumérer et classer les calendriers groupe d’abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l’Athènes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n’était en usage qu’à l’Académie. Mais, à la différence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus écrivant la biographie de son maître, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de fêtes et de rites, était réalité hors de l’enceinte de l’Académie, dans la société harrânienne. Le calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l’École platonicienne de Harrân ne se différenciait du calendrier luni-solaire local hérité de la colonisation macédonienne que par son début d’année et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l’un à l’autre n’offrait aucune difficulté. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville. L’hémérologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle année du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier académique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l’Hémerologion et al-Hàsimî transmettent respectivement les noms macédoniens et araméens. L’exemple des débuts d’année, développé par Simplicius, offre un déroulement du temps harrânien à quatre entrées festives, comme l’a bien noté al-Bîrünî. L’année académique des Platoniciens, réglée sur le solstice d’été (calendrier attique), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Hekatombaiôn, qui correspondait respectivement au 1ᵉʳ Lôos (Éphèse), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes). L’année civile et religieuse de la ville, réglée sur l’équinoxe d’automne (calendrier asiate), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Dios/Tišrîn al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1ᵉʳ Puanepsiôn (Athéniens). L’année civile et religieuse de l’Empire, réglée sur le solstice d’hiver (calendrier romain), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ janvier/Kânûn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gamêliôn (Athéniens), au 8 Peritios (Éphèse). L’année coutumière de la région, réglée sur l’équinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Xanthikos/Nîsân, qui correspondait à la veille du 30 Elaphêboliôn (Athéniens), au 22 mars (Romains), et à la veille du 30 Xanthikos (Éphèse). La parenthèse sur les débuts d’année, ouverte par Simplicius à propos de l’exemple du début du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de consécution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels. Elle constitue le plus ancien témoignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-araméens de Harrân. Elle permet d’identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahsî, al-Hàsimî et Wahb. Elle confirme que c’est bien là, dans cette «ville bénie, parce que jamais souillée par l’erreur de Nazareth», que trouvèrent refuge les derniers Platoniciens après 533. Dans les calendriers de Wahb et d’al-Hâsimî, se côtoient pêle-mêle les noms de divinités babyloniennes, égyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncrétisme ne pouvait que faire bon ménage avec la religion de l’Académie. Selon l’objectif de l’École d’Athènes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d’être le thérapeute d’une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi être «l’hiérophante du monde entier». En s’installant à Harrân à leur retour d’Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l’endroit idéal pour réaliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TgVuqJv1CIhi085 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":475,"authors_free":[{"id":640,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":641,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"L\u2019ordre des saisons adopt\u00e9 par Simplicius pour \u00e9num\u00e9rer et classer les calendriers groupe d\u2019abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l\u2019Ath\u00e8nes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n\u2019\u00e9tait en usage qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Mais, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus \u00e9crivant la biographie de son ma\u00eetre, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de f\u00eates et de rites, \u00e9tait r\u00e9alit\u00e9 hors de l\u2019enceinte de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 harr\u00e2nienne.\r\n\r\nLe calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne de Harr\u00e2n ne se diff\u00e9renciait du calendrier luni-solaire local h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la colonisation mac\u00e9donienne que par son d\u00e9but d\u2019ann\u00e9e et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l\u2019un \u00e0 l\u2019autre n\u2019offrait aucune difficult\u00e9. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville.\r\n\r\nL\u2019h\u00e9m\u00e9rologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle ann\u00e9e du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier acad\u00e9mique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l\u2019H\u00e9merologion et al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee transmettent respectivement les noms mac\u00e9doniens et aram\u00e9ens.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exemple des d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Simplicius, offre un d\u00e9roulement du temps harr\u00e2nien \u00e0 quatre entr\u00e9es festives, comme l\u2019a bien not\u00e9 al-B\u00eer\u00fcn\u00ee. L\u2019ann\u00e9e acad\u00e9mique des Platoniciens, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 (calendrier attique), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Hekatombai\u00f4n, qui correspondait respectivement au 1\u1d49\u02b3 L\u00f4os (\u00c9ph\u00e8se), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de la ville, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe d\u2019automne (calendrier asiate), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Dios\/Ti\u0161r\u00een al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Puanepsi\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de l\u2019Empire, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019hiver (calendrier romain), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 janvier\/K\u00e2n\u00fbn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gam\u00eali\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 8 Peritios (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e coutumi\u00e8re de la r\u00e9gion, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Xanthikos\/N\u00ees\u00e2n, qui correspondait \u00e0 la veille du 30 Elaph\u00eaboli\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 22 mars (Romains), et \u00e0 la veille du 30 Xanthikos (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nLa parenth\u00e8se sur les d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, ouverte par Simplicius \u00e0 propos de l\u2019exemple du d\u00e9but du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de cons\u00e9cution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels.\r\n\r\nElle constitue le plus ancien t\u00e9moignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-aram\u00e9ens de Harr\u00e2n. Elle permet d\u2019identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahs\u00ee, al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee et Wahb.\r\n\r\nElle confirme que c\u2019est bien l\u00e0, dans cette \u00abville b\u00e9nie, parce que jamais souill\u00e9e par l\u2019erreur de Nazareth\u00bb, que trouv\u00e8rent refuge les derniers Platoniciens apr\u00e8s 533.\r\n\r\nDans les calendriers de Wahb et d\u2019al-H\u00e2sim\u00ee, se c\u00f4toient p\u00eale-m\u00eale les noms de divinit\u00e9s babyloniennes, \u00e9gyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncr\u00e9tisme ne pouvait que faire bon m\u00e9nage avec la religion de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nSelon l\u2019objectif de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d\u2019\u00eatre le th\u00e9rapeute d\u2019une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi \u00eatre \u00abl\u2019hi\u00e9rophante du monde entier\u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn s\u2019installant \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n \u00e0 leur retour d\u2019Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l\u2019endroit id\u00e9al pour r\u00e9aliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TgVuqJv1CIhi085","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":475,"section_of":171,"pages":"40-57","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 148-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own. The diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well. But even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy. Some of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"487","_score":null,"_source":{"id":487,"authors_free":[{"id":665,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":666,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"},"abstract":"What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own.\r\n\r\nThe diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well.\r\n\r\nBut even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy.\r\n\r\nSome of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":487,"section_of":171,"pages":"148-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | John Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 1-40 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension. Philoponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FDyWUVJUOYpvtvb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":488,"authors_free":[{"id":667,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":668,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus"},"abstract":"This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FDyWUVJUOYpvtvb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":488,"section_of":1383,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Infinity and the Creation |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 164-178 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning. Indeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works. A little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word "was" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy. What I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did. Two slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further—indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RDC5FI7QaO4jMjf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"489","_score":null,"_source":{"id":489,"authors_free":[{"id":669,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":670,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Infinity and the Creation","main_title":{"title":"Infinity and the Creation"},"abstract":"The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning.\r\n\r\nIndeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works.\r\n\r\nA little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word \"was\" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy.\r\n\r\nWhat I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did.\r\n\r\nTwo slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further\u2014indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RDC5FI7QaO4jMjf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":489,"section_of":1383,"pages":"164-178","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 267-286 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Harlfinger, Dieter |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240—1300)1 stammt eine der —wie sich zeigen wird — textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des für die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekanntermaßen unschätzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den Büchern I—IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbständige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als tätige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angehörten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die führenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen — obwohl kein Simplikianer — unter ihnen referieren, über ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wußte, daß ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des „locus fenestratus" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabhängigen Textträger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabhängigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mußte sich aber zur Klärung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift Ε (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und Eä als dislozierte Partien in Ε bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktusänderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte darüber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen jüngeren Manuskript geben. — Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal über den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film — soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 — rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich — der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei für Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken —, meine ersten Eindrücke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorläufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden müßten; hierin ein Plädoyer für eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lJYydaL12PDErlM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":515,"authors_free":[{"id":714,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":5,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","free_first_name":"Dieter","free_last_name":"Harlfinger","norm_person":{"id":5,"first_name":"Dieter","last_name":"Harlfinger","full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107988674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":715,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"},"abstract":"In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240\u20141300)1 stammt eine der \u2014wie sich zeigen wird \u2014 textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des f\u00fcr die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekannterma\u00dfen unsch\u00e4tzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den B\u00fcchern I\u2014IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbst\u00e4ndige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als t\u00e4tige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angeh\u00f6rten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die f\u00fchrenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen \u2014 obwohl kein Simplikianer \u2014 unter ihnen referieren, \u00fcber ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wu\u00dfte, da\u00df ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des \u201elocus fenestratus\" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabh\u00e4ngigen Texttr\u00e4ger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabh\u00e4ngigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mu\u00dfte sich aber zur Kl\u00e4rung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift \u0395 (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und E\u00e4 als dislozierte Partien in \u0395 bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktus\u00e4nderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte dar\u00fcber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen j\u00fcngeren Manuskript geben. \u2014 Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal \u00fcber den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film \u2014 soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 \u2014 rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich \u2014 der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei f\u00fcr Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken \u2014, meine ersten Eindr\u00fccke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorl\u00e4ufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden m\u00fc\u00dften; hierin ein Pl\u00e4doyer f\u00fcr eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJYydaL12PDErlM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":5,"full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":515,"section_of":171,"pages":"267-286","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 326-367 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' "Handbook," resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":519,"authors_free":[{"id":724,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":725,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth","main_title":{"title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"},"abstract":"The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' \"Handbook,\" resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":519,"section_of":171,"pages":"326-367","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 3-39 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des œuvres de Simplicius. Nous sont conservés : les commentaires sur le Manuel d’Epictète, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Catégories, probablement sur le De anima d’Aristote. Sont perdus, mais attestés de façon plus ou moins sûre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, un commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Jamblique consacré à la secte des Pythagoriciens, une Épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, où se trouve un renvoi à cette œuvre, est authentique), et peut-être un commentaire sur la Techné d’Hermogène. [conclusion p. 39] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":522,"authors_free":[{"id":728,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":729,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes","main_title":{"title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"},"abstract":"Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des \u0153uvres de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNous sont conserv\u00e9s : les commentaires sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Cat\u00e9gories, probablement sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nSont perdus, mais attest\u00e9s de fa\u00e7on plus ou moins s\u00fbre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, un commentaire sur l\u2019ouvrage de Jamblique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la secte des Pythagoriciens, une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, o\u00f9 se trouve un renvoi \u00e0 cette \u0153uvre, est authentique), et peut-\u00eatre un commentaire sur la Techn\u00e9 d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne. [conclusion p. 39]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":522,"section_of":171,"pages":"3-39","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation |
Pages | 294-313 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Guérard, Christian |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
«Le néoplatonisme, écrit J. Trouillard, succède au ‘moyen platonisme’ le jour où les platoniciens se mettent à chercher dans le Parménide le secret de la philosophie de Platon»¹. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut même dire que la lecture néoplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la première hypothèse, est le Néoplatonisme lui-même². Sans revenir davantage sur le rôle considérable du Parménide chez Plotin³, bornons-nous à rappeler qu’il a été commenté de façon systématique par Porphyre⁴, puis, comme en témoigne Proclus⁵, par Amélius, Théodore d’Asiné, Jamblique, l’obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d’Athènes et Syrianus. À son tour, le Lycien a rédigé un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu’il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Théologie platonicienne. De même, les deux œuvres rassemblées par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem⁶ montrent l’importance du dialogue chez Damascius. Cette relecture du Parménide a posé bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqué l’influence d’idées orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d’avoir « sombré dans l’irrationalisme ». Une telle attitude, déjà fort visible chez V. Cousin⁷, l’éditeur même de Proclus, malheureusement demeure⁸. En fait, chez Plotin, l’orientalisme se limiterait au plus à l’aspiration mystique⁹ : la définition du Bien (épékeina tês ousias) est dans la République, VI 509B9, et les spéculations néopythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l’Un du Parménide le Principe de tout¹⁰. Il ne restait qu’à faire le lien, peut-être en retrouvant ainsi la pensée de Speusippe¹¹, mais, sans aucun doute, en s’opposant au platonisme de l’époque. Au IIᵉ siècle notamment, le Parménide était considéré comme une œuvre « logique », un exercice éristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique mégarique. C’était l’opinion des aristotéliciens dont Alexandre d’Aphrodise¹², et aussi celle d’Albinus¹³, par exemple. Pour presque tous¹⁴, le dialogue n’était qu’un jeu discursif employant la méthode des Topiques d’Aristote¹⁵. Il était admis qu’il s’agissait d’une réfutation de l’éléatisme, et, dans la première hypothèse en particulier, d’une réplique ironique de Gorgias¹⁶. La conception néoplatonicienne n’était pas très aisée à soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des réalités sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parménide ? D’ailleurs, l’hypothèse est-elle celle de l’Éléate¹⁷ ? Enfin, connaissait-il l’Un avant l’être et la théologie négative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse révéler les choses les plus hautes si le Parménide du Poème n’a rien à voir avec le personnage de Platon ? Devant ces questions, la figure de l’Éléate prenait un relief nouveau nécessitant à son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parménide allait s’inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au néoplatonisme, et qui, d’une certaine manière, le définit. [introduction p. 294-295] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8WXrV6XuPyldosH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"530","_score":null,"_source":{"id":530,"authors_free":[{"id":746,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":150,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","norm_person":{"id":150,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":747,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"\u00abLe n\u00e9oplatonisme, \u00e9crit J. Trouillard, succ\u00e8de au \u2018moyen platonisme\u2019 le jour o\u00f9 les platoniciens se mettent \u00e0 chercher dans le Parm\u00e9nide le secret de la philosophie de Platon\u00bb\u00b9. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut m\u00eame dire que la lecture n\u00e9oplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se, est le N\u00e9oplatonisme lui-m\u00eame\u00b2.\r\n\r\nSans revenir davantage sur le r\u00f4le consid\u00e9rable du Parm\u00e9nide chez Plotin\u00b3, bornons-nous \u00e0 rappeler qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on syst\u00e9matique par Porphyre\u2074, puis, comme en t\u00e9moigne Proclus\u2075, par Am\u00e9lius, Th\u00e9odore d\u2019Asin\u00e9, Jamblique, l\u2019obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et Syrianus. \u00c0 son tour, le Lycien a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu\u2019il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. De m\u00eame, les deux \u0153uvres rassembl\u00e9es par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem\u2076 montrent l\u2019importance du dialogue chez Damascius.\r\n\r\nCette relecture du Parm\u00e9nide a pos\u00e9 bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqu\u00e9 l\u2019influence d\u2019id\u00e9es orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d\u2019avoir \u00ab sombr\u00e9 dans l\u2019irrationalisme \u00bb. Une telle attitude, d\u00e9j\u00e0 fort visible chez V. Cousin\u2077, l\u2019\u00e9diteur m\u00eame de Proclus, malheureusement demeure\u2078.\r\n\r\nEn fait, chez Plotin, l\u2019orientalisme se limiterait au plus \u00e0 l\u2019aspiration mystique\u2079 : la d\u00e9finition du Bien (\u00e9p\u00e9keina t\u00eas ousias) est dans la R\u00e9publique, VI 509B9, et les sp\u00e9culations n\u00e9opythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l\u2019Un du Parm\u00e9nide le Principe de tout\u00b9\u2070. Il ne restait qu\u2019\u00e0 faire le lien, peut-\u00eatre en retrouvant ainsi la pens\u00e9e de Speusippe\u00b9\u00b9, mais, sans aucun doute, en s\u2019opposant au platonisme de l\u2019\u00e9poque.\r\n\r\nAu II\u1d49 si\u00e8cle notamment, le Parm\u00e9nide \u00e9tait consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une \u0153uvre \u00ab logique \u00bb, un exercice \u00e9ristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique m\u00e9garique. C\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019opinion des aristot\u00e9liciens dont Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise\u00b9\u00b2, et aussi celle d\u2019Albinus\u00b9\u00b3, par exemple. Pour presque tous\u00b9\u2074, le dialogue n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un jeu discursif employant la m\u00e9thode des Topiques d\u2019Aristote\u00b9\u2075. Il \u00e9tait admis qu\u2019il s\u2019agissait d\u2019une r\u00e9futation de l\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9atisme, et, dans la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se en particulier, d\u2019une r\u00e9plique ironique de Gorgias\u00b9\u2076.\r\n\r\nLa conception n\u00e9oplatonicienne n\u2019\u00e9tait pas tr\u00e8s ais\u00e9e \u00e0 soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parm\u00e9nide ? D\u2019ailleurs, l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se est-elle celle de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate\u00b9\u2077 ? Enfin, connaissait-il l\u2019Un avant l\u2019\u00eatre et la th\u00e9ologie n\u00e9gative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse r\u00e9v\u00e9ler les choses les plus hautes si le Parm\u00e9nide du Po\u00e8me n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec le personnage de Platon ?\r\n\r\nDevant ces questions, la figure de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate prenait un relief nouveau n\u00e9cessitant \u00e0 son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parm\u00e9nide allait s\u2019inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au n\u00e9oplatonisme, et qui, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, le d\u00e9finit. [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8WXrV6XuPyldosH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":150,"full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":530,"section_of":372,"pages":"294-313","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":372,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 289-325 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Si l’on essaie d’évaluer l’influence exercée par un auteur grec sur l’Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l’on doit se tourner tout d’abord vers l’étude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait été plus élevé qu’on ne le croit d’ordinaire, la traduction n’en était pas moins, à cette époque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les idées des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les écoles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L’intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d’une part, elle fera l’historique des traductions qui en ont été faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d’autre part, elle présentera les résultats d’une première reconnaissance d’un terrain très vaste et à peine défriché, à savoir celui de l’influence qu’ont eue ces traductions sur les traités médiévaux. [introduction p. 289] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"568","_score":null,"_source":{"id":568,"authors_free":[{"id":806,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":807,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)","main_title":{"title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on essaie d\u2019\u00e9valuer l\u2019influence exerc\u00e9e par un auteur grec sur l\u2019Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l\u2019on doit se tourner tout d\u2019abord vers l\u2019\u00e9tude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait \u00e9t\u00e9 plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 qu\u2019on ne le croit d\u2019ordinaire, la traduction n\u2019en \u00e9tait pas moins, \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les id\u00e9es des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les \u00e9coles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L\u2019intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d\u2019une part, elle fera l\u2019historique des traductions qui en ont \u00e9t\u00e9 faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d\u2019autre part, elle pr\u00e9sentera les r\u00e9sultats d\u2019une premi\u00e8re reconnaissance d\u2019un terrain tr\u00e8s vaste et \u00e0 peine d\u00e9frich\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir celui de l\u2019influence qu\u2019ont eue ces traductions sur les trait\u00e9s m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux. [introduction p. 289]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":568,"section_of":171,"pages":"289-325","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
Pages | 1079-1174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
Translator(s) |
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1987]}
Title | Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985) |
Pages | 1-20 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lamberz, Erich |
Editor(s) | Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Translator(s) |
In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, daß die Kommentare aus der mündlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser mündlichen Exegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren mündlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussionen gehört zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die Unterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerklärung (theôria) und Einzelerklärung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage außer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten Kommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint deshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos und anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag mündlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen terminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einfügung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen Kommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WFCq8CflnlIPypA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1191","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1191,"authors_free":[{"id":1762,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":226,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lamberz, Erich","free_first_name":"Erich","free_last_name":"Lamberz","norm_person":{"id":226,"first_name":"Erich","last_name":"Lamberz","full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/125040709","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2057,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2058,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars","main_title":{"title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"},"abstract":"In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, da\u00df die Kommentare aus der m\u00fcndlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser m\u00fcndlichen \r\nExegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren m\u00fcndlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussio\u00adnen geh\u00f6rt zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die \r\nUnterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerkl\u00e4rung (the\u00f4ria) und Einzelerkl\u00e4rung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage au\u00dfer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten \r\nKommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint \r\ndeshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos \r\nund anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag m\u00fcndlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen \r\nterminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einf\u00fcgung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen \r\nKommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WFCq8CflnlIPypA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":226,"full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1191,"section_of":159,"pages":"1-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Theophrastus on the Heavens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 577-593 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance—the ether—distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1028","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1028,"authors_free":[{"id":1553,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1554,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance\u2014the ether\u2014distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1028,"section_of":190,"pages":"577-593","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Strato’s theory of the void |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 594-609 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Furley, David J. |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), Simplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a distinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and those who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first class. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think it is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the material substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that which completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further subdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen sions, “as Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did”, and those who gave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the one hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held that place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists without any body in it, and on the other hand, “the famous Plato- nists and Strato of Lampsacus”, who said that place is an extended interval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its particular occupant... [p. 594] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/67tMakGWPrXgZyV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"785","_score":null,"_source":{"id":785,"authors_free":[{"id":1157,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":103,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Furley, David J. ","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":{"id":103,"first_name":"David J. ","last_name":"Furley","full_name":"Furley, David J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138978131","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2354,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void","main_title":{"title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), \r\nSimplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a \r\ndistinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and \r\nthose who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first \r\nclass. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think \r\nit is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the \r\nmaterial substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that \r\nwhich completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further \r\nsubdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen\u00ad\r\nsions, \u201cas Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did\u201d, and those who \r\ngave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the \r\none hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held \r\nthat place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists \r\nwithout any body in it, and on the other hand, \u201cthe famous Plato- \r\nnists and Strato of Lampsacus\u201d, who said that place is an extended \r\ninterval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its \r\nparticular occupant... [p. 594]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67tMakGWPrXgZyV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":103,"full_name":"Furley, David J. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":785,"section_of":190,"pages":"594-609","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 57-97 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mignucci, Mario |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle’s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle’s references to what is nowadays called ‘Leibniz’s Law’ (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be: (1) x=y ⟹ ∀F(F(x) ⟺ F(y))x=y⟹∀F(F(x)⟺F(y)) It is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the ‘principle of substitutivity’ (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem. First, I will consider Aristotle’s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle’s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"959","_score":null,"_source":{"id":959,"authors_free":[{"id":1439,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":259,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mignucci, Mario","free_first_name":"Mario","free_last_name":"Mignucci","norm_person":{"id":259,"first_name":"Mignucci","last_name":"Mario","full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194188885","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2083,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators","main_title":{"title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle\u2019s references to what is nowadays called \u2018Leibniz\u2019s Law\u2019 (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be:\r\n\r\n (1) x=y\u2005\u200a\u27f9\u2005\u200a\u2200F(F(x)\u2005\u200a\u27fa\u2005\u200aF(y))x=y\u27f9\u2200F(F(x)\u27faF(y))\r\n\r\nIt is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the \u2018principle of substitutivity\u2019 (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem.\r\n\r\nFirst, I will consider Aristotle\u2019s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle\u2019s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":259,"full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":959,"section_of":190,"pages":"57-97","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte |
Pages | 227-239 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | Motte, André , Rutten, Christian |
Translator(s) |
Comme nous l’avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilisé systématiquement la synopsis des livres V à VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laissé des traces ailleurs dans la littérature tardive ? Nous n’en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l’attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cicéron. Il s’agit d’une discussion de la thèse platonicienne selon laquelle l’âme est immortelle parce qu’elle est automotrice. Macrobe note qu’Aristote a contesté la légitimité de cette thèse et affirmé que l’âme ne peut se mouvoir elle-même et ne peut même subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d’abord qu’il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d’immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait à prouver que tout ce qui est mû l’est par quelque chose d’autre. Puis il établissait l’existence d’un premier moteur non mû. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l’âme est principe de mouvement, elle doit être immobile. Pour illustrer ces diverses thèses d’Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments présentés par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s’agit pas là de citations ou d’extraits littéraux, mais bien de résumés où la substance des développements d’Aristote est réduite à l’essentiel, donc d’une sorte d’epidromê ou de synopsis des passages utilisés. Or, nous savons que de tous les néoplatoniciens, Porphyre est l’un de ceux que Macrobe, qui dépend d’ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fréquemment. Dans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme très probable l’hypothèse selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunté au traité de Porphyre Peri Psychês pros Boêthon les développements qu’il consacre au passage du Phèdre, traduit par Cicéron, sur l’automotricité et l’immortalité de l’âme. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d’Aristote ont été tirées de la même source, ou si Macrobe les a trouvées ailleurs, chez un péripatéticien, par exemple. Si l’on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait très bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie commenté et en partie résumé la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l’âme, il s’était attaché non seulement à présenter les vues de Platon, mais aussi à les défendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement étendu sur les difficultés que les théories aristotéliciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l’automotricité de l’âme. À cet effet, Porphyre avait exploité surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait résumé sous la forme d’une synopsis les livres V à VIII, tout nous invite à croire qu’il avait largement utilisé cette synopsis en rédigeant son propre Peri Psychês. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypothèse, tout alléchante qu’elle est, ne dépasse pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du résumé porphyrien du huitième livre de la Physique et, dès lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d’Aristote présentées par Macrobe remontent bien, en dernière analyse, à la synopsis qui a fait l’objet de la présente étude. [conclusion p. 237-239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HITY0gikmySrLA8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"494","_score":null,"_source":{"id":494,"authors_free":[{"id":681,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2115,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2409,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Comme nous l\u2019avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilis\u00e9 syst\u00e9matiquement la synopsis des livres V \u00e0 VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laiss\u00e9 des traces ailleurs dans la litt\u00e9rature tardive ? Nous n\u2019en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l\u2019attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cic\u00e9ron. Il s\u2019agit d\u2019une discussion de la th\u00e8se platonicienne selon laquelle l\u2019\u00e2me est immortelle parce qu\u2019elle est automotrice.\r\n\r\nMacrobe note qu\u2019Aristote a contest\u00e9 la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de cette th\u00e8se et affirm\u00e9 que l\u2019\u00e2me ne peut se mouvoir elle-m\u00eame et ne peut m\u00eame subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d\u2019abord qu\u2019il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d\u2019immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait \u00e0 prouver que tout ce qui est m\u00fb l\u2019est par quelque chose d\u2019autre. Puis il \u00e9tablissait l\u2019existence d\u2019un premier moteur non m\u00fb. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l\u2019\u00e2me est principe de mouvement, elle doit \u00eatre immobile.\r\n\r\nPour illustrer ces diverses th\u00e8ses d\u2019Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s\u2019agit pas l\u00e0 de citations ou d\u2019extraits litt\u00e9raux, mais bien de r\u00e9sum\u00e9s o\u00f9 la substance des d\u00e9veloppements d\u2019Aristote est r\u00e9duite \u00e0 l\u2019essentiel, donc d\u2019une sorte d\u2019epidrom\u00ea ou de synopsis des passages utilis\u00e9s. Or, nous savons que de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Porphyre est l\u2019un de ceux que Macrobe, qui d\u00e9pend d\u2019ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fr\u00e9quemment.\r\n\r\nDans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme tr\u00e8s probable l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunt\u00e9 au trait\u00e9 de Porphyre Peri Psych\u00eas pros Bo\u00eathon les d\u00e9veloppements qu\u2019il consacre au passage du Ph\u00e8dre, traduit par Cic\u00e9ron, sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 et l\u2019immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d\u2019Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9es de la m\u00eame source, ou si Macrobe les a trouv\u00e9es ailleurs, chez un p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien, par exemple.\r\n\r\nSi l\u2019on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait tr\u00e8s bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie comment\u00e9 et en partie r\u00e9sum\u00e9 la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l\u2019\u00e2me, il s\u2019\u00e9tait attach\u00e9 non seulement \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter les vues de Platon, mais aussi \u00e0 les d\u00e9fendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement \u00e9tendu sur les difficult\u00e9s que les th\u00e9ories aristot\u00e9liciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cet effet, Porphyre avait exploit\u00e9 surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait r\u00e9sum\u00e9 sous la forme d\u2019une synopsis les livres V \u00e0 VIII, tout nous invite \u00e0 croire qu\u2019il avait largement utilis\u00e9 cette synopsis en r\u00e9digeant son propre Peri Psych\u00eas. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypoth\u00e8se, tout all\u00e9chante qu\u2019elle est, ne d\u00e9passe pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du r\u00e9sum\u00e9 porphyrien du huiti\u00e8me livre de la Physique et, d\u00e8s lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es par Macrobe remontent bien, en derni\u00e8re analyse, \u00e0 la synopsis qui a fait l\u2019objet de la pr\u00e9sente \u00e9tude. [conclusion p. 237-239]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HITY0gikmySrLA8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":494,"section_of":297,"pages":"227-239","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":297,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motte1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Levels of human thinking in Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday |
Pages | 451-470 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van |
Translator(s) |
What is finally the meaning of Philoponus’s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may conclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the intelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure of philosophical wisdom". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back and turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside themselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly participate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. They never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means of discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be comes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1391","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1391,"authors_free":[{"id":2156,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2160,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2161,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2162,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"},"abstract":"What is finally the meaning of Philoponus\u2019s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may \r\nconclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the \r\nintelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure \r\nof philosophical wisdom\". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back \r\nand turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside them\u00adselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly \r\nparticipate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. \r\nThey never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means \r\nof discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be\u00ad\r\ncomes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1391,"section_of":1392,"pages":"451-470","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1392,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laga1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERNutaoLJTpirTN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1985]}
Title | Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1983 |
Published in | Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages |
Pages | 37-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1188","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1188,"authors_free":[{"id":1760,"entry_id":1188,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)","main_title":{"title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"},"abstract":"The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1188,"section_of":1367,"pages":"37-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1367,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laks2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Depuis la premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition de ce livre, Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie, un des derniers \"physiciens\" pr\u00e9socratiques, longtemps d\u00e9valoris\u00e9 par la r\u00e9putation d' \"\u00e9clectique\" que H. Diels avait attach\u00e9e \u00e0 son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscit\u00e9 un regain d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\r\n\r\nCette seconde \u00e9dition d'un ouvrage qui reste \u00e0 ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages de Diog\u00e8ne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 revue et corrig\u00e9e, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une s\u00e9rie d'ajouts marqu\u00e9s comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq ann\u00e9es \u00e9coul\u00e9es. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article s\u00e9minal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six t\u00e9moignages, dont un nouveau classement est propos\u00e9, une analyse visant \u00e0 reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.\r\n\r\nQuatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques, qui requ\u00e9raient un traitement s\u00e9par\u00e9. Une cinqui\u00e8me, en anglais, offre une pr\u00e9sentation synth\u00e9tique de l'interpr\u00e9tation ici d\u00e9fendue, qui situe l'importance de Diog\u00e8ne dans son rapport \u00e0 Anaxagore et \u00e0 sa doctrine de l' \"intellect\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WWBP0kG5a0nZ1I3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1367,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"International Pre-Platonic Studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1983)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1983]}
Title | Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1983 |
Published in | Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung |
Pages | 113-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar |
Translator(s) |
Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in späteren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bezüglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von Körpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden Körpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erklärung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer Körper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erklärungen der Realität streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verständnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird erörtert, ob Ort ein räumliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf Körper haben. Spätere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gefH5Atxe7LieDs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"451","_score":null,"_source":{"id":451,"authors_free":[{"id":605,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":606,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":607,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie","main_title":{"title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"},"abstract":"Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in sp\u00e4teren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bez\u00fcglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von K\u00f6rpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden K\u00f6rpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erkl\u00e4rung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer K\u00f6rper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erkl\u00e4rungen der Realit\u00e4t streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verst\u00e4ndnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird er\u00f6rtert, ob Ort ein r\u00e4umliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf K\u00f6rper haben. Sp\u00e4tere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gefH5Atxe7LieDs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":451,"section_of":325,"pages":"113-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":325,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Irmscher_M\u00fcller1983","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1983","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1983","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1983]}
Title | Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1982 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and Christian thought |
Pages | 169-177 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mahoney, Edward P. |
Editor(s) | O'Meara, Dominic J. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aristotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317—388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1111","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1111,"authors_free":[{"id":1678,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":459,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","free_first_name":"Edward P.","free_last_name":"Mahoney","norm_person":{"id":459,"first_name":"Edward P.","last_name":"Mahoney","full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123905818","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1679,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris\u00adtotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317\u2014388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":459,"full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1111,"section_of":12,"pages":"169-177","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1982]}
Title | Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1982 |
Published in | Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet |
Pages | 277-280 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis |
Translator(s) |
Les écoles néoplatoniciennes postérieures ont établi un programme d’enseignement qu’on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales étapes de ce cursus : a) Propédeutique morale : Étude de textes comme le Manuel d’Épictète et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces œuvres étaient souvent accompagnées de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hiéroclès. b) Introduction générale à la philosophie : Basée sur l'Isagogè de Porphyre, cette étape proposait une définition et des divisions de la philosophie (théorétique et pratique), suivant un schéma attribué à Porphyre ou Andronicus. c) Étude préparatoire à Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagogè comme introduction indispensable aux Catégories d’Aristote, en appliquant un cadre méthodologique précis avant d’entamer le commentaire. d) Introduction à Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Catégories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses écrits, et les qualités requises pour ses lecteurs et exégètes. e) Cycle d’études aristotéliciennes : Études couvrant logique, éthique, politique, physique et théologie sur une durée estimée à deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle préparait les étudiants à l’étude des dialogues platoniciens. f) Étude de Platon : Introduction systématique à Platon, incluant l’ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s’inspirait également des médio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos. g) Oracles chaldaïques : Étudiés comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d’autres néoplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon. h) Poésie orphique : Considérée comme le niveau suprême, la poésie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l’objet de commentaires approfondis, particulièrement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":534,"authors_free":[{"id":754,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2105,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2106,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2107,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2108,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes","main_title":{"title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"},"abstract":"Les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes post\u00e9rieures ont \u00e9tabli un programme d\u2019enseignement qu\u2019on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales \u00e9tapes de ce cursus : a) Prop\u00e9deutique morale : \u00c9tude de textes comme le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces \u0153uvres \u00e9taient souvent accompagn\u00e9es de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nb) Introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la philosophie : Bas\u00e9e sur l'Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre, cette \u00e9tape proposait une d\u00e9finition et des divisions de la philosophie (th\u00e9or\u00e9tique et pratique), suivant un sch\u00e9ma attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Porphyre ou Andronicus.\r\n\r\nc) \u00c9tude pr\u00e9paratoire \u00e0 Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagog\u00e8 comme introduction indispensable aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, en appliquant un cadre m\u00e9thodologique pr\u00e9cis avant d\u2019entamer le commentaire.\r\n\r\nd) Introduction \u00e0 Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses \u00e9crits, et les qualit\u00e9s requises pour ses lecteurs et ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes.\r\n\r\ne) Cycle d\u2019\u00e9tudes aristot\u00e9liciennes : \u00c9tudes couvrant logique, \u00e9thique, politique, physique et th\u00e9ologie sur une dur\u00e9e estim\u00e9e \u00e0 deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle pr\u00e9parait les \u00e9tudiants \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des dialogues platoniciens.\r\n\r\nf) \u00c9tude de Platon : Introduction syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 Platon, incluant l\u2019ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s\u2019inspirait \u00e9galement des m\u00e9dio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos.\r\n\r\ng) Oracles chalda\u00efques : \u00c9tudi\u00e9s comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d\u2019autres n\u00e9oplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon.\r\n\r\nh) Po\u00e9sie orphique : Consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le niveau supr\u00eame, la po\u00e9sie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l\u2019objet de commentaires approfondis, particuli\u00e8rement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":534,"section_of":377,"pages":"277-280","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":377,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1982","abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1982]}
Title | Plotinus in later Platonism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong |
Pages | 212-222 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A. |
Translator(s) |
We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus’ views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought. However, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus\u2019 views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought.\r\n\r\nHowever, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Markus1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}
Title | La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"185","_score":null,"_source":{"id":185,"authors_free":[{"id":241,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2506,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":" I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":185,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":185,"section_of":1459,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}
Title | Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Pages | 179-182 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"63","_score":null,"_source":{"id":63,"authors_free":[{"id":71,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2505,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"},"abstract":"Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":63,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy","series":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Ath\u00e8nes, Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":63,"section_of":1459,"pages":"179-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}
Title | Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and Christian thought |
Pages | 45-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | O'Meara, Dominic J. |
Translator(s) |
The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle’s Physics is particularly inter esting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre vious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always faithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not that of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to Aristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar distortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance and fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary of Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any case, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where the author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own ideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with the help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already noticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute Aristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of Ammonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not belong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly to the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement and time. [conclusion p. 52-53] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QSUX1JffS4trd4H |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":450,"authors_free":[{"id":603,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":604,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is particularly inter\u00ad\r\nesting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre\u00ad\r\nvious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always \r\nfaithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not \r\nthat of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to \r\nAristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar \r\ndistortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance \r\nand fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary \r\nof Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any \r\ncase, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where \r\nthe author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own \r\nideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with \r\nthe help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already \r\nnoticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute \r\nAristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of \r\nAmmonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not \r\nbelong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly \r\nto the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement \r\nand time. [conclusion p. 52-53]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QSUX1JffS4trd4H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":450,"section_of":12,"pages":"45-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}
Title | Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Pages | 250 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vamvoukakis, Nicolas |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UItMYMORGj0gHKz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1460","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1460,"authors_free":[{"id":2524,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2525,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos,","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UItMYMORGj0gHKz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1460,"section_of":1459,"pages":"250","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Theod\u014drakopulos1981","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1981]}
Title | Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 89-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Avant-propos L’école d’Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Catégories d’Aristote. Les divisions du texte — un point de repère. Objet de l’argument (5b11-15) Distinction entre propriétés et possesseurs de propriétés. Distinction entre l’aire et la surface, le volume et le corps. Distinction entre quantités déterminées et quantités indéterminées. Le premier argument (5b15-29) La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi. Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison. Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe. Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue. Le doublet (5b26-29). Le deuxième argument (5b30-33) Rubrique liminaire : une même chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d’une catégorie ? Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ? Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire. Relation et contrariété : la prémisse sous-jacente de l’argument. Le troisième argument (5b33-6a11) Introduction à l’argument (5b33-35). Première partie de l’argument : une chose admettra deux contraires à la fois (5b35-6a4). Seconde partie de l’argument : les choses contraires seront, à elles-mêmes, contraires (6a4-8). Conclusion de l’argument (6a8-11). Traduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Catégories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1099","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1099,"authors_free":[{"id":1661,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1662,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford","main_title":{"title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"},"abstract":"Avant-propos\r\nL\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\nLes divisions du texte \u2014 un point de rep\u00e8re.\r\nObjet de l\u2019argument (5b11-15)\r\n\r\n Distinction entre propri\u00e9t\u00e9s et possesseurs de propri\u00e9t\u00e9s.\r\n Distinction entre l\u2019aire et la surface, le volume et le corps.\r\n Distinction entre quantit\u00e9s d\u00e9termin\u00e9es et quantit\u00e9s ind\u00e9termin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLe premier argument (5b15-29)\r\n\r\n La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi.\r\n Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue.\r\n Le doublet (5b26-29).\r\n\r\nLe deuxi\u00e8me argument (5b30-33)\r\n\r\n Rubrique liminaire : une m\u00eame chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d\u2019une cat\u00e9gorie ?\r\n Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ?\r\n Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire.\r\n Relation et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : la pr\u00e9misse sous-jacente de l\u2019argument.\r\n\r\nLe troisi\u00e8me argument (5b33-6a11)\r\n\r\n Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019argument (5b33-35).\r\n Premi\u00e8re partie de l\u2019argument : une chose admettra deux contraires \u00e0 la fois (5b35-6a4).\r\n Seconde partie de l\u2019argument : les choses contraires seront, \u00e0 elles-m\u00eames, contraires (6a4-8).\r\n Conclusion de l\u2019argument (6a8-11).\r\n\r\nTraduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Cat\u00e9gories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1099,"section_of":302,"pages":"89-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}
Title | Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 197-216 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narcy, Michel |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Au chapitre 8 des Catégories, consacré à la qualité (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l’a fait à propos des catégories précédentes (substance, quantité, relation), fait suivre son exposé de l’examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l’ordre de la qualité, se trouvent contrariété (enantiótes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to héttion). On peut noter d’ailleurs qu’à la réponse à ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des catégories de l’action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconnaître qu’elles constituent comme l’application aux catégories aristotéliciennes d’un système catégorial plus ancien, provenant de l’Académie et dérivé, à travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme. Il peut paraître étrange de délimiter ici, en vue d’une étude de la catégorie de qualité, un passage d’allure adventice, où vient pour ainsi dire s’entrecroiser avec le fil de l’exposé d’Aristote, et contredire l’assurance de sa classification, une problématique qui semble d’autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu’elle contribue surtout à jeter le doute sur la cohérence de l’exposé qui précède. À chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d’abord une réponse affirmative (contrariété : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c’est pour noter ensuite, à la règle ainsi posée, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrariété le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d’autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n’ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De même, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu’à la différence des autres qualités, la figure n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c’est ainsi l’une des quatre subdivisions de la qualité qui se voit assigner un statut à part. Rejoignant là l’objection que fait Plotin au principe même d’une division au sein de la qualité, on ne peut éviter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rangée sous cette catégorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le système catégorial académique, Aristote se trouve confronté à une difficulté dont il ne vient pas à bout, soit qu’il souligne ainsi l’inadéquation de la « grille » qu’il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. À moins que se révèlent, dans la difficulté précisément, pour autant qu’elle est comme une trace de la cassure opérée, et à moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d’être de la catégorie aristotélicienne de la qualité, et avec elle, la doctrine des catégories. L’exception constituée par la figure, en effet, n’est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune à propos de la contrariété, non seulement l’expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation à l’appui. Ce qui doit d’autant plus retenir l’attention, qu’il a tout d’abord travaillé à réduire une première exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la santé (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin égal apporté, d’abord à réduire une première exception, puis à en produire une autre, donne à croire qu’à entendre au plus près la difficulté, on a chance d’y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine. Examinons donc tout d’abord la première partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C’est l’affirmation que les qualités (tà poià) reçoivent « le plus et le moins » (tà mallon kai tà héttion) : « du blanc, en effet : l’un est dit plus et moins qu’un autre. Et du juste : l’un qu’un autre, plus ». [introduction p. 197-198] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"792","_score":null,"_source":{"id":792,"authors_free":[{"id":1169,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1170,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)","main_title":{"title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"},"abstract":"Au chapitre 8 des Cat\u00e9gories, consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l\u2019a fait \u00e0 propos des cat\u00e9gories pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes (substance, quantit\u00e9, relation), fait suivre son expos\u00e9 de l\u2019examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l\u2019ordre de la qualit\u00e9, se trouvent contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 (enanti\u00f3tes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to h\u00e9ttion). On peut noter d\u2019ailleurs qu\u2019\u00e0 la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconna\u00eetre qu\u2019elles constituent comme l\u2019application aux cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019un syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial plus ancien, provenant de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et d\u00e9riv\u00e9, \u00e0 travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme.\r\n\r\nIl peut para\u00eetre \u00e9trange de d\u00e9limiter ici, en vue d\u2019une \u00e9tude de la cat\u00e9gorie de qualit\u00e9, un passage d\u2019allure adventice, o\u00f9 vient pour ainsi dire s\u2019entrecroiser avec le fil de l\u2019expos\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote, et contredire l\u2019assurance de sa classification, une probl\u00e9matique qui semble d\u2019autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu\u2019elle contribue surtout \u00e0 jeter le doute sur la coh\u00e9rence de l\u2019expos\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de. \u00c0 chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d\u2019abord une r\u00e9ponse affirmative (contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c\u2019est pour noter ensuite, \u00e0 la r\u00e8gle ainsi pos\u00e9e, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d\u2019autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n\u2019ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De m\u00eame, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu\u2019\u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence des autres qualit\u00e9s, la figure n\u2019est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c\u2019est ainsi l\u2019une des quatre subdivisions de la qualit\u00e9 qui se voit assigner un statut \u00e0 part.\r\n\r\nRejoignant l\u00e0 l\u2019objection que fait Plotin au principe m\u00eame d\u2019une division au sein de la qualit\u00e9, on ne peut \u00e9viter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rang\u00e9e sous cette cat\u00e9gorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial acad\u00e9mique, Aristote se trouve confront\u00e9 \u00e0 une difficult\u00e9 dont il ne vient pas \u00e0 bout, soit qu\u2019il souligne ainsi l\u2019inad\u00e9quation de la \u00ab grille \u00bb qu\u2019il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. \u00c0 moins que se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent, dans la difficult\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, pour autant qu\u2019elle est comme une trace de la cassure op\u00e9r\u00e9e, et \u00e0 moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d\u2019\u00eatre de la cat\u00e9gorie aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9, et avec elle, la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exception constitu\u00e9e par la figure, en effet, n\u2019est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune \u00e0 propos de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9, non seulement l\u2019expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation \u00e0 l\u2019appui. Ce qui doit d\u2019autant plus retenir l\u2019attention, qu\u2019il a tout d\u2019abord travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la sant\u00e9 (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin \u00e9gal apport\u00e9, d\u2019abord \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, puis \u00e0 en produire une autre, donne \u00e0 croire qu\u2019\u00e0 entendre au plus pr\u00e8s la difficult\u00e9, on a chance d\u2019y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine.\r\n\r\nExaminons donc tout d\u2019abord la premi\u00e8re partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C\u2019est l\u2019affirmation que les qualit\u00e9s (t\u00e0 poi\u00e0) re\u00e7oivent \u00ab le plus et le moins \u00bb (t\u00e0 mallon kai t\u00e0 h\u00e9ttion) : \u00ab du blanc, en effet : l\u2019un est dit plus et moins qu\u2019un autre. Et du juste : l\u2019un qu\u2019un autre, plus \u00bb. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":792,"section_of":302,"pages":"197-216","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}
Title | Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 253-269 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vamvoukakis, Nicolas |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
L’analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d’«agir» et de «pâtir») est d’un intérêt multiple. Les notions mêmes sont d’une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le néoplatonisme tardif : en tant que catégories, elles désignent la mobilité, le dynamisme et la créativité de l’être ; en tant que réalités physiques ou métaphysiques désignées par ces mots, l’action et la passion sont directement liées à la théorie aristotélicienne de puissance, d’acte et de mouvement, et non moins à la problématique néoplatonicienne sur la Procession. L’importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l’utilité de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compréhension de la pensée aristotélicienne ; et cela d’autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux catégories d’action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristotélicien dans le traité des Catégories ne dépasse pas huit lignes. Par l’exposé exhaustif et raisonné de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux catégories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des problèmes sur l’action et la passion qu’Aristote aurait pu ou aurait dû se poser lui-même dans son discours sur les Catégories. Ainsi l’examen portera sur les caractères principaux de l’action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une catégorie à part, sur le problème de la réductibilité de ces deux catégories aux autres ou à une seule et sur leur division en espèces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur généralité, sont indiscutablement conformes à l’esprit de l’auteur du traité des Catégories ; mais lorsqu’on aborde leur examen détaillé dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent étonné par l’intrusion d’éléments, surtout spéculatifs, qui, en apparence, relèvent d’un mode de pensée complètement étranger à celui d’Aristote. Mais, en fait, une étude serrée du commentaire montre qu’il est possible (et même nécessaire, si l’on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer : les éléments purement aristotéliciens ; ceux qui, exprimés en termes néoplatoniciens, sont aisément transposables dans l’univers d’Aristote ; ceux qui prolongent la problématique aristotélicienne dans la perspective du néoplatonisme tardif. Ces prolongements ne sont pourtant pas dépourvus d’intérêt pour l’aristotélisme : en posant et en résolvant des problèmes qu’Aristote lui-même n’avait pas posés, mais qui, en dernière analyse, découlent de ses propres thèses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une réponse même si Aristote ne l’a pas donnée, on comprend beaucoup plus à fond toutes les ramifications de sa problématique ; et de même par l’examen des réponses proposées ou en essayant de répondre soi-même à la place d’Aristote. D’où il ressort que la bonne compréhension et l’appréciation juste d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote présupposent une connaissance adéquate de la philosophie aristotélicienne ainsi qu’une certaine expérience des traits particuliers à la pensée et à la sensibilité des néoplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas exégétiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase élaborée, mais, sans négliger les nuances, s’attaquent au cœur même des problèmes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articulées. [introduction p. 253-254] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O07AYBHdocDRTVL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":455,"authors_free":[{"id":611,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":612,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"},"abstract":"L\u2019analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d\u2019\u00abagir\u00bb et de \u00abp\u00e2tir\u00bb) est d\u2019un int\u00e9r\u00eat multiple. Les notions m\u00eames sont d\u2019une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif : en tant que cat\u00e9gories, elles d\u00e9signent la mobilit\u00e9, le dynamisme et la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre ; en tant que r\u00e9alit\u00e9s physiques ou m\u00e9taphysiques d\u00e9sign\u00e9es par ces mots, l\u2019action et la passion sont directement li\u00e9es \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie aristot\u00e9licienne de puissance, d\u2019acte et de mouvement, et non moins \u00e0 la probl\u00e9matique n\u00e9oplatonicienne sur la Procession.\r\n\r\nL\u2019importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compr\u00e9hension de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne ; et cela d\u2019autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristot\u00e9licien dans le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ne d\u00e9passe pas huit lignes. Par l\u2019expos\u00e9 exhaustif et raisonn\u00e9 de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des probl\u00e8mes sur l\u2019action et la passion qu\u2019Aristote aurait pu ou aurait d\u00fb se poser lui-m\u00eame dans son discours sur les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nAinsi l\u2019examen portera sur les caract\u00e8res principaux de l\u2019action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une cat\u00e9gorie \u00e0 part, sur le probl\u00e8me de la r\u00e9ductibilit\u00e9 de ces deux cat\u00e9gories aux autres ou \u00e0 une seule et sur leur division en esp\u00e8ces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9, sont indiscutablement conformes \u00e0 l\u2019esprit de l\u2019auteur du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ; mais lorsqu\u2019on aborde leur examen d\u00e9taill\u00e9 dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent \u00e9tonn\u00e9 par l\u2019intrusion d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments, surtout sp\u00e9culatifs, qui, en apparence, rel\u00e8vent d\u2019un mode de pens\u00e9e compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tranger \u00e0 celui d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nMais, en fait, une \u00e9tude serr\u00e9e du commentaire montre qu\u2019il est possible (et m\u00eame n\u00e9cessaire, si l\u2019on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer :\r\n\r\n les \u00e9l\u00e9ments purement aristot\u00e9liciens ;\r\n ceux qui, exprim\u00e9s en termes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, sont ais\u00e9ment transposables dans l\u2019univers d\u2019Aristote ;\r\n ceux qui prolongent la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne dans la perspective du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif.\r\n\r\nCes prolongements ne sont pourtant pas d\u00e9pourvus d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat pour l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme : en posant et en r\u00e9solvant des probl\u00e8mes qu\u2019Aristote lui-m\u00eame n\u2019avait pas pos\u00e9s, mais qui, en derni\u00e8re analyse, d\u00e9coulent de ses propres th\u00e8ses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une r\u00e9ponse m\u00eame si Aristote ne l\u2019a pas donn\u00e9e, on comprend beaucoup plus \u00e0 fond toutes les ramifications de sa probl\u00e9matique ; et de m\u00eame par l\u2019examen des r\u00e9ponses propos\u00e9es ou en essayant de r\u00e9pondre soi-m\u00eame \u00e0 la place d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 il ressort que la bonne compr\u00e9hension et l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation juste d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote pr\u00e9supposent une connaissance ad\u00e9quate de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ainsi qu\u2019une certaine exp\u00e9rience des traits particuliers \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e et \u00e0 la sensibilit\u00e9 des n\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase \u00e9labor\u00e9e, mais, sans n\u00e9gliger les nuances, s\u2019attaquent au c\u0153ur m\u00eame des probl\u00e8mes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articul\u00e9es. [introduction p. 253-254]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O07AYBHdocDRTVL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":455,"section_of":302,"pages":"253-269","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}
Title | Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 217-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
L'exposé que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'étudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu’Aristote, dans son Traité des Catégories, nous donne sur les prédicats ποῦ et ποτέ, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La matière fournie par les textes aristotéliciens étant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius. Si les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c’est pourtant par rapport à eux, c'est-à-dire par différence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu’à titre secondaire, la méditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d’ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs antérieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux catégories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est considéré comme plus « proche » de l'essence, plus « apparenté » à elle, la catégorie ποῦ (ou la catégorie ποτέ) se situera plus près de l’ousia dans la liste des catégories. Tel étant le critère du classement, l'analyse catégoriale court toujours le risque d’être remplacée par une étude « physique » du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des catégories au niveau d’une étude des signifiés et des significations. Un second danger se présente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse catégoriale et l'analyse grammaticale des « parties du discours ». En effet, les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ correspondent presque exclusivement à deux classes d’adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps. Nous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compléments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit exposée dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives à cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guidé par l'idée d’une étroite parenté entre les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ, Simplicius étudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme modèle la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu. À la suite de Jamblique, il défend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la thèse soutenue par Aristote dans son Traité des Catégories : ποτέ et ποῦ sont des catégories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu relèvent de la quantité. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius établissent que ποῦ signifie « la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu », et ποτέ « la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps ». D'autre part, ποῦ et ποτέ se différencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux catégories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu à ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":508,"authors_free":[{"id":702,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":703,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'expos\u00e9 que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'\u00e9tudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu\u2019Aristote, dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, nous donne sur les pr\u00e9dicats \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La mati\u00e8re fournie par les textes aristot\u00e9liciens \u00e9tant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nSi les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c\u2019est pourtant par rapport \u00e0 eux, c'est-\u00e0-dire par diff\u00e9rence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu\u2019\u00e0 titre secondaire, la m\u00e9ditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d\u2019ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs ant\u00e9rieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux cat\u00e9gories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme plus \u00ab proche \u00bb de l'essence, plus \u00ab apparent\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 elle, la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 (ou la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad) se situera plus pr\u00e8s de l\u2019ousia dans la liste des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nTel \u00e9tant le crit\u00e8re du classement, l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale court toujours le risque d\u2019\u00eatre remplac\u00e9e par une \u00e9tude \u00ab physique \u00bb du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories au niveau d\u2019une \u00e9tude des signifi\u00e9s et des significations. Un second danger se pr\u00e9sente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale et l'analyse grammaticale des \u00ab parties du discours \u00bb. En effet, les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad correspondent presque exclusivement \u00e0 deux classes d\u2019adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps.\r\n\r\nNous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compl\u00e9ments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit expos\u00e9e dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives \u00e0 cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guid\u00e9 par l'id\u00e9e d\u2019une \u00e9troite parent\u00e9 entre les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, Simplicius \u00e9tudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme mod\u00e8le la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la suite de Jamblique, il d\u00e9fend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la th\u00e8se soutenue par Aristote dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories : \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad et \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 sont des cat\u00e9gories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu rel\u00e8vent de la quantit\u00e9. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius \u00e9tablissent que \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 signifie \u00ab la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu \u00bb, et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u00ab la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps \u00bb.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad se diff\u00e9rencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n\u2019est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux cat\u00e9gories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu \u00e0 ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":508,"section_of":302,"pages":"217-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1980]}
Title | Simplicius: Corollarium de loco |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1979 |
Published in | L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977 |
Pages | 143-161 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean |
Translator(s) |
En conclusion : La définition aristotélicienne du lieu comme « première limite immobile de l'enveloppant » tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est enveloppé par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'« expérience » et avec d’autres exigences du système (la dignité du mouvement circulaire uniforme et éternel convient à la substance céleste). Proclus, sur la base de la problématique aristotélicienne, interprète l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situé en lui comme une compénétration totale de l’un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sphère corporelle de lumière pure en coïncidence parfaite avec la sphère cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui. Damascius propose une solution plus métaphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'où procèdent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement. Proclus et Damascius, chacun à leur manière, établissent donc : que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ; que le Monde se meut localement. Ils triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pensée d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":510,"authors_free":[{"id":707,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":708,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":709,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"En conclusion : La d\u00e9finition aristot\u00e9licienne du lieu comme \u00ab premi\u00e8re limite immobile de l'enveloppant \u00bb tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est envelopp\u00e9 par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'\u00ab exp\u00e9rience \u00bb et avec d\u2019autres exigences du syst\u00e8me (la dignit\u00e9 du mouvement circulaire uniforme et \u00e9ternel convient \u00e0 la substance c\u00e9leste).\r\n\r\n Proclus, sur la base de la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne, interpr\u00e8te l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situ\u00e9 en lui comme une comp\u00e9n\u00e9tration totale de l\u2019un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sph\u00e8re corporelle de lumi\u00e8re pure en co\u00efncidence parfaite avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui.\r\n\r\n Damascius propose une solution plus m\u00e9taphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'o\u00f9 proc\u00e8dent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement.\r\n\r\nProclus et Damascius, chacun \u00e0 leur mani\u00e8re, \u00e9tablissent donc :\r\n\r\n que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ;\r\n que le Monde se meut localement.\r\n\r\nIls triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]","btype":2,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":510,"section_of":140,"pages":"143-161","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":140,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aujac\/Soubiran1979","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1979","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1979","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1979]}
Title | "Simplikios" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1975 |
Published in | Der kleine Pauly, Band 5 |
Pages | 205 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dörrie, Heinrich |
Editor(s) | Konrat Ziegler |
Translator(s) |
Simplikios (Σιμπλίκιος), Neuplatoniker, Schüler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen übergesiedelt sein. Als das Schließungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des Königs Chosroes I., eine neue Stätte für philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begründen. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins Römische Reich zurück, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrtätigkeit auszuüben. Alle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten. Verloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes’ τέχνη und zu Iamblichos’ περί τής Πυθαγόρου αἱρέσεως. Erhalten und sämtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare: De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII). Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII). Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X). De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI). Das ungewöhnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum Ἐγχειρίδιον des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet. Viele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen für Anfänger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit höheren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, für künftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. „Gerade seine nüchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner großen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem höchst achtenswerten Kommentator.“ (K. Praechter). In engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in beträchtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker³, 638–640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides für uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken. Die Beweisführung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche σοφία und der gleiche λόγος spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt für die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie für Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen – selbstverständlich auch Epiktet – immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verkündet haben. Außer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende Würdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1292,"authors_free":[{"id":1881,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","free_first_name":"Heinrich ","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2697,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konrat Ziegler","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Simplikios (\u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), Neuplatoniker, Sch\u00fcler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen \u00fcbergesiedelt sein. Als das Schlie\u00dfungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des K\u00f6nigs Chosroes I., eine neue St\u00e4tte f\u00fcr philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begr\u00fcnden. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins R\u00f6mische Reich zur\u00fcck, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrt\u00e4tigkeit auszu\u00fcben.\r\n\r\nAlle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten.\r\n\r\nVerloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes\u2019 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 und zu Iamblichos\u2019 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Erhalten und s\u00e4mtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare:\r\n\r\n De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII).\r\n Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII).\r\n Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X).\r\n De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI).\r\n\r\nDas ungew\u00f6hnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum \u1f18\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet.\r\n\r\nViele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen f\u00fcr Anf\u00e4nger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit h\u00f6heren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, f\u00fcr k\u00fcnftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. \u201eGerade seine n\u00fcchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner gro\u00dfen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem h\u00f6chst achtenswerten Kommentator.\u201c (K. Praechter).\r\n\r\nIn engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in betr\u00e4chtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker\u00b3, 638\u2013640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides f\u00fcr uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken.\r\n\r\nDie Beweisf\u00fchrung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 und der gleiche \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt f\u00fcr die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie f\u00fcr Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen \u2013 selbstverst\u00e4ndlich auch Epiktet \u2013 immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verk\u00fcndet haben.\r\n\r\nAu\u00dfer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende W\u00fcrdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1292,"section_of":264,"pages":"205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":264,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sontheimer1975","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1975","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1975]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1975 |
Published in | Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS |
Pages | 440-443 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Gillispie, Charles Coulston |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics. Very little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus. Simplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of "the One." Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius’ circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine. There are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite. Simplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27). Apparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine. As a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius’ constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32). Simplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist—which is clearly impossible. Simplicius’ notion of “infinite” is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1393,"authors_free":[{"id":2163,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2165,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.\r\n\r\nVery little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of \"the One.\" Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius\u2019 circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.\r\n\r\nThere are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle\u2019s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).\r\n\r\nApparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.\r\n\r\nAs a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius\u2019 constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).\r\n\r\nSimplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist\u2014which is clearly impossible. Simplicius\u2019 notion of \u201cinfinite\u201d is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1393,"section_of":1394,"pages":"440-443","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1394,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pt8Q1J4Rc3TbiFs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1975]}
Title | La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I |
Pages | 265-288 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır , Mansel, Arif Müfid |
Translator(s) |
Tout comme l’archéologie, la numismatique ou l’épigraphie, l’histoire littéraire est parfois amenée à se demander si les matériaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d’attribution devaient se produire plus aisément que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propriété littéraire était assez flottante ; un auteur plus récent ne se faisait aucun scrupule à reproduire, parfois littéralement, ce qu’un auteur plus ancien avait écrit sur le même sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude délibérée, le faussaire lançant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru. Il est remarquable que, dans les derniers siècles de l’Antiquité grecque, les commentateurs d’Aristote se soient posé la question de savoir si tel ou tel écrit dont ils avaient à s’occuper était bien l’œuvre d’Aristote. Divers témoignages nous apprennent même que le problème de l’authenticité était l’un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s’attaquer à l’analyse et à l’interprétation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d’introduction générale à la lecture d’Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son école s’arrêtaient aux dix questions suivantes : D’où les diverses écoles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ? Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d’Aristote ? Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l’étude de la philosophie aristotélicienne ? Quel est le but de cette philosophie ? Par quels moyens peut-on arriver à ce but ? Quels sont les caractères de l’exposé ou du style d’Aristote ? Comment justifier l’obscurité d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’interprète d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’étudiant qui aborde la philosophie d’Aristote ? Quelles questions convient-il d’examiner avant d’étudier chaque traité en particulier ? Nous n’avons pas à nous étendre ici sur le problème, assez controversé, de l’origine de ce schéma. Disons simplement que, même si sa forme stéréotypée est assez récente, certains de ses éléments sont à coup sûr bien antérieurs à Ammonius, chez qui le schéma apparaît pour la première fois. C’est le dixième point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l’avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d’expliquer chaque traité, de répondre dans l’introduction aux six questions suivantes : Quel est le but du traité en question ? Quelle est son utilité ? Quelle est sa place dans l’œuvre d’Aristote ? Comment expliquer son titre ? Le traité est-il authentique ? Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ? Bien sûr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la même acuité : il peut arriver, par exemple, que l’utilité de l’ouvrage soit évidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticité saute aux yeux et n’ait jamais été contestée ; alors, le commentateur n’aura pas à s’étendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est intéressant de noter que le problème de l’authenticité faisait partie des sujets habituellement abordés par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d’Aristote. Nous nous proposons d’examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d’authenticité qui ont survécu dans les commentaires arrivés jusqu’à nous. Plusieurs commentateurs néoplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et à la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l’on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n’émanant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants : Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu’ils acquéraient pour les bibliothèques qu’ils avaient créées ; cela ne pouvait qu’inciter les faussaires au travail. Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d’auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d’attribution. Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait à leur maître l’honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions. Ces indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erronées viennent de faire l’objet d’une bonne étude ; nous n’y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d’examiner plus en détail les déclarations des commentateurs relatives à l’authenticité de certains traités du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments étaient utilisés pour établir ou contester l’authenticité d’un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements portés dans les différents cas. Les traités ou parties de traités sur lesquels nous possédons, à cet égard, des renseignements concrets sont : les Catégories, les Postprédicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Catégories), le De interpretatione, les Analytiques, la Physique, les Météorologiques, et les deux premiers livres de la Métaphysique. [introduction p. 265-267] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"956","_score":null,"_source":{"id":956,"authors_free":[{"id":1434,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2111,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2112,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2410,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Tout comme l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie, la numismatique ou l\u2019\u00e9pigraphie, l\u2019histoire litt\u00e9raire est parfois amen\u00e9e \u00e0 se demander si les mat\u00e9riaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d\u2019attribution devaient se produire plus ais\u00e9ment que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 litt\u00e9raire \u00e9tait assez flottante\u202f; un auteur plus r\u00e9cent ne se faisait aucun scrupule \u00e0 reproduire, parfois litt\u00e9ralement, ce qu\u2019un auteur plus ancien avait \u00e9crit sur le m\u00eame sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e, le faussaire lan\u00e7ant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru.\r\n\r\nIl est remarquable que, dans les derniers si\u00e8cles de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 grecque, les commentateurs d\u2019Aristote se soient pos\u00e9 la question de savoir si tel ou tel \u00e9crit dont ils avaient \u00e0 s\u2019occuper \u00e9tait bien l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote. Divers t\u00e9moignages nous apprennent m\u00eame que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 \u00e9tait l\u2019un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s\u2019attaquer \u00e0 l\u2019analyse et \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d\u2019introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la lecture d\u2019Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son \u00e9cole s\u2019arr\u00eataient aux dix questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n D\u2019o\u00f9 les diverses \u00e9coles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ?\r\n Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l\u2019\u00e9tude de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ?\r\n Quel est le but de cette philosophie ?\r\n Par quels moyens peut-on arriver \u00e0 ce but ?\r\n Quels sont les caract\u00e8res de l\u2019expos\u00e9 ou du style d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment justifier l\u2019obscurit\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019interpr\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019\u00e9tudiant qui aborde la philosophie d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles questions convient-il d\u2019examiner avant d\u2019\u00e9tudier chaque trait\u00e9 en particulier ?\r\n\r\nNous n\u2019avons pas \u00e0 nous \u00e9tendre ici sur le probl\u00e8me, assez controvers\u00e9, de l\u2019origine de ce sch\u00e9ma. Disons simplement que, m\u00eame si sa forme st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9e est assez r\u00e9cente, certains de ses \u00e9l\u00e9ments sont \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr bien ant\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 Ammonius, chez qui le sch\u00e9ma appara\u00eet pour la premi\u00e8re fois. C\u2019est le dixi\u00e8me point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l\u2019avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d\u2019expliquer chaque trait\u00e9, de r\u00e9pondre dans l\u2019introduction aux six questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n Quel est le but du trait\u00e9 en question ?\r\n Quelle est son utilit\u00e9 ?\r\n Quelle est sa place dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment expliquer son titre ?\r\n Le trait\u00e9 est-il authentique ?\r\n Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ?\r\n\r\nBien s\u00fbr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la m\u00eame acuit\u00e9\u202f: il peut arriver, par exemple, que l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de l\u2019ouvrage soit \u00e9vidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticit\u00e9 saute aux yeux et n\u2019ait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9e\u202f; alors, le commentateur n\u2019aura pas \u00e0 s\u2019\u00e9tendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est int\u00e9ressant de noter que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 faisait partie des sujets habituellement abord\u00e9s par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nNous nous proposons d\u2019examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d\u2019authenticit\u00e9 qui ont surv\u00e9cu dans les commentaires arriv\u00e9s jusqu\u2019\u00e0 nous. Plusieurs commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et \u00e0 la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l\u2019on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n\u2019\u00e9manant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants :\r\n\r\n Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu\u2019ils acqu\u00e9raient pour les biblioth\u00e8ques qu\u2019ils avaient cr\u00e9\u00e9es\u202f; cela ne pouvait qu\u2019inciter les faussaires au travail.\r\n Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d\u2019auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d\u2019attribution.\r\n Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait \u00e0 leur ma\u00eetre l\u2019honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions.\r\n\r\nCes indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erron\u00e9es viennent de faire l\u2019objet d\u2019une bonne \u00e9tude\u202f; nous n\u2019y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d\u2019examiner plus en d\u00e9tail les d\u00e9clarations des commentateurs relatives \u00e0 l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de certains trait\u00e9s du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments \u00e9taient utilis\u00e9s pour \u00e9tablir ou contester l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 d\u2019un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements port\u00e9s dans les diff\u00e9rents cas.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s ou parties de trait\u00e9s sur lesquels nous poss\u00e9dons, \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, des renseignements concrets sont :\r\n\r\n les Cat\u00e9gories,\r\n les Postpr\u00e9dicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Cat\u00e9gories),\r\n le De interpretatione,\r\n les Analytiques,\r\n la Physique,\r\n les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques,\r\n et les deux premiers livres de la M\u00e9taphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":956,"section_of":296,"pages":"265-288","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":296,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mansel1974","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}
Title | Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 261-319 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios besteht keine völlige Parallelität, weshalb inXG als Quelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn während die MXG-Prädikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und Simpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent stammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als "spät- eleatische Quelle" bezeichneten, hat MXG zusätzlich einen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom Rest abweichenden (kürzere und einfachere Aussage ohne Dichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widersprüchlichen Prädikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. Prädikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. 23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch der zuverlässige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in gleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Prädikat reihe für den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), geht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben Ausführungen des Eresiers zurück.Doch auch Simplikios gibt über das mit MXG Gemeinsame hinaus Auszüge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- 29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. 986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":433,"authors_free":[{"id":583,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2170,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"},"abstract":"Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios \r\nbesteht keine v\u00f6llige Parallelit\u00e4t, weshalb inXG als \r\nQuelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn w\u00e4hrend die \r\nMXG-Pr\u00e4dikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und \r\nSimpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent\u00ad\r\nstammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als \"sp\u00e4t- \r\neleatische Quelle\" bezeichneten, hat MXG zus\u00e4tzlich \r\neinen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom \r\nRest abweichenden (k\u00fcrzere und einfachere Aussage ohne \r\nDichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widerspr\u00fcchlichen \r\nPr\u00e4dikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. \r\nPr\u00e4dikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. \r\n23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch \r\nder zuverl\u00e4ssige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in \r\ngleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Pr\u00e4dikat\u00ad\r\nreihe f\u00fcr den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), \r\ngeht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben \r\nAusf\u00fchrungen des Eresiers zur\u00fcck.Doch auch Simplikios gibt \u00fcber das mit MXG Gemeinsame \r\nhinaus Ausz\u00fcge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- \r\n29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. \r\n986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":433,"section_of":2,"pages":"261-319","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}
Title | Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 208-229 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zunächst, die Rückführbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu überprüfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt erschüttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Prädikaten ebensowenig eine zuverlässige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den φυσικαὶ δόξαι, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"434","_score":null,"_source":{"id":434,"authors_free":[{"id":584,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2169,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?","main_title":{"title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"},"abstract":"Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zun\u00e4chst, die R\u00fcckf\u00fchrbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu \u00fcberpr\u00fcfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt ersch\u00fcttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikaten ebensowenig eine zuverl\u00e4ssige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":434,"section_of":2,"pages":"208-229","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}
Title | Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 99-164 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Prägen völlig eindeutig ist, erwähnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 Körperlichkeit des Einen für Melissos: hôs autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das spätere kai autos houtô g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverlässigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erklären mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet. Wenn (a) kai touto sôma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat hôs autos legei gehört, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekundärquelle geschöpft sein; aber auch falls (b) hôs autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto sôma bereits ein eigenständiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inadäquate Ausdeutungen daran anknüpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von sôma und mere für den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine über das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verfügbar waren. Gegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unkörperlichkeit für das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum körperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to haplôs on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus natürlich nicht übersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie hätten nichts außer den tôn aisthetôn ousia angenommen, auf die sie die für die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins übertragen hätten. Melissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte – stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein – nach einem Aufriss gemäß den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den geläufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegenüber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Prädikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden. In diesen Zusammenhang ließ sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Berührungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... eiê bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen genügen müsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-Sätze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter heißt, sôma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos für das Seiende eine solche Körperlichkeit ausschließen. [conclusion p. 163-164] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"435","_score":null,"_source":{"id":435,"authors_free":[{"id":585,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2168,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)","main_title":{"title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"},"abstract":"Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Pr\u00e4gen v\u00f6llig eindeutig ist, erw\u00e4hnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 K\u00f6rperlichkeit des Einen f\u00fcr Melissos: h\u00f4s autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das sp\u00e4tere kai autos hout\u00f4 g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverl\u00e4ssigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erkl\u00e4ren mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet.\r\n\r\nWenn (a) kai touto s\u00f4ma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat h\u00f4s autos legei geh\u00f6rt, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekund\u00e4rquelle gesch\u00f6pft sein; aber auch falls (b) h\u00f4s autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto s\u00f4ma bereits ein eigenst\u00e4ndiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inad\u00e4quate Ausdeutungen daran ankn\u00fcpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von s\u00f4ma und mere f\u00fcr den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine \u00fcber das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verf\u00fcgbar waren.\r\n\r\nGegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unk\u00f6rperlichkeit f\u00fcr das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum k\u00f6rperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to hapl\u00f4s on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus nat\u00fcrlich nicht \u00fcbersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie h\u00e4tten nichts au\u00dfer den t\u00f4n aisthet\u00f4n ousia angenommen, auf die sie die f\u00fcr die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins \u00fcbertragen h\u00e4tten.\r\n\r\nMelissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte \u2013 stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein \u2013 nach einem Aufriss gem\u00e4\u00df den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den gel\u00e4ufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegen\u00fcber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Pr\u00e4dikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden.\r\n\r\nIn diesen Zusammenhang lie\u00df sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Ber\u00fchrungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... ei\u00ea bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen gen\u00fcgen m\u00fcsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-S\u00e4tze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter hei\u00dft, s\u00f4ma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos f\u00fcr das Seiende eine solche K\u00f6rperlichkeit ausschlie\u00dfen. [conclusion p. 163-164]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":435,"section_of":2,"pages":"99-164","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}
Title | Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 17-41 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen für den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsmöglichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Auszüge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase für den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Prädikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit günstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten über den Grad der Authentizität des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt hält den Bericht für zuverlässig, da jede spätere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Prädikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien. Gigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar "bedeutend schlechter" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von wörtlicher Nähe zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Prädikate und der Hinzufügung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) äußerten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Gedächtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzufügung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu. Während bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein völlig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzufügungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen Möglichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erklärung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht könne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden. Es soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizität und die Art eventueller Zusätze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit günstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien für die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenmäßig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dnhawLwLUUqppPb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"436","_score":null,"_source":{"id":436,"authors_free":[{"id":586,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2167,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung","main_title":{"title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"},"abstract":"Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen f\u00fcr den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsm\u00f6glichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Ausz\u00fcge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase f\u00fcr den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit g\u00fcnstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten \u00fcber den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt h\u00e4lt den Bericht f\u00fcr zuverl\u00e4ssig, da jede sp\u00e4tere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien.\r\n\r\nGigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar \"bedeutend schlechter\" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von w\u00f6rtlicher N\u00e4he zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Pr\u00e4dikate und der Hinzuf\u00fcgung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) \u00e4u\u00dferten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzuf\u00fcgung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu.\r\n\r\nW\u00e4hrend bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein v\u00f6llig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzuf\u00fcgungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen M\u00f6glichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erkl\u00e4rung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht k\u00f6nne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden.\r\n\r\nEs soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t und die Art eventueller Zus\u00e4tze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit g\u00fcnstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien f\u00fcr die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenm\u00e4\u00dfig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dnhawLwLUUqppPb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":436,"section_of":2,"pages":"17-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1974]}
Title | The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1973 |
Published in | Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric |
Pages | 101-126 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kustas, George L. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle’s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry’s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus’ students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius’ lectures before emigrating to Athens. We are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle’s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1514","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1514,"authors_free":[{"id":2630,"entry_id":1514,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L.","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge","main_title":{"title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"},"abstract":"Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle\u2019s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry\u2019s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth\/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus\u2019 students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius\u2019 lectures before emigrating to Athens.\r\n\r\nWe are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle\u2019s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]","btype":2,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1514,"section_of":1515,"pages":"101-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1515,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kustas_1973","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1973","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1514,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"101-126"}},"sort":[1973]}
Title | La fin de l'Acádemie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1971 |
Published in | Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969 |
Pages | 281-290 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
Editor(s) | Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l’Académie tomba dans un déclin rapide. Trois générations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient été formés à Athènes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la génération suivante, Asclépius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous élèves d’Ammonius à Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-même avait été élève de Proclus. Nous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus à Athènes, mais ils ne sont guère pour nous que des noms. Même Damascius, qui était scolarque en l’année fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie à Athènes n’était jamais tombée aussi bas que juste avant son accession à la chaire. Tout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont généralement considéré que ce déclin a continué sans interruption jusqu’en 529 et qu’en 529, lorsque Justinien a publié son illustre édit fermant l’Académie, elle était déjà sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils considèrent que l’acte de Justinien fut plutôt de l’euthanasie qu’un assassinat. La dernière étude sur la fermeture de l’Académie admet sans discussion qu’en 529, la philosophie païenne d’Athènes avait déjà succombé sous les coups de la philosophie christianisée d’Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les étudiants, sauvés des griffes de l’impie Damascius, pouvaient désormais être guidés sur les chemins de la vérité par des chrétiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. Hélas ! Cette image édifiante n’a rien à voir avec l’histoire. Il est douteux qu’il y ait jamais eu une école chrétienne de philosophie à Gaza. Énée et Procope étaient tous deux professeurs de rhétorique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rhéteurs (Épiphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux étaient morts. En ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement à une opinion largement répandue, Philopon ne succéda pas à la chaire d’Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est resté, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de littérature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la théologie — et vers l’hérésie. En outre, l’influence de la tradition scolaire était si forte, même dans le cas de philosophes chrétiens, que les écrits de Philopon ont exercé une influence étonnamment faible sur l’enseignement à Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore à Alexandrie dans les années 560, était en effet païen, et ses successeurs, Élie, David, Étienne, bien que chrétiens, continuèrent à enseigner des doctrines comme l’éternité du monde et la divinité des corps célestes, qui avaient été déjà depuis longtemps réfutées par Philopon. Nous ne découvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois évoqué en termes grandiloquents comme une synthèse de l’aristotélisme et du christianisme. Dès lors, il ne saurait être question de la vitalité supérieure d’une philosophie chrétienne écrasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l’on compare le travail qui se fait à Athènes et à Alexandrie dans la première moitié du VIe siècle — en négligeant la production des dernières années de Philopon, comme étrangère à la tradition universitaire proprement dite —, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins. Quant à la réputation de Damascius comme professeur (et la compétence scientifique a autant d’importance que l’habileté pédagogique), elle est établie par la liste de ses élèves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Phénicie et de Gaza : un véritable recrutement international. Assez étrangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caractère international de l’école de Damascius pour prouver la décadence de l’Académie. Athènes elle-même, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Athéniens pour cultiver l’héritage de Platon. C’est ignorer le caractère international de la vie universitaire à la fin de l’Antiquité, caractère bien mis en évidence par la Vie d’Isidore écrite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes. En cet âge d’or de la rhétorique que fut le IVe siècle, à Athènes, les grands noms étaient Julien de Cappadoce, Himérius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d’Arménie. À peu près aucun Athénien parmi eux. Proclus lui-même était lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C’est plutôt un signe de la santé de ses institutions qu’Athènes pût encore attirer des étrangers de valeur ! Je voudrais suggérer, en effet, que bien loin que ce fût l’Académie qui fût sur son lit de mort en 529, c’était l’école d’Alexandrie qui était en déclin après la mort d’Ammonius, alors que l’Académie reprenait vie. Les successeurs d’Ammonius à Alexandrie furent Eutocius le mathématicien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l’un ni l’autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l’énergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l’Académie et s’était entouré d’une équipe de disciples dévoués — dévoués, car nous savons qu’ils le suivirent en Perse après la fermeture de l’Académie. Une illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Athènes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore dépendait essentiellement d’Ammonius, dans ses dernières œuvres, il s’appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, là encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Athènes. Il se peut que Justinien n’ait pas fermé l’Académie par mépris, parce qu’elle était moribonde, mais — et c’est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible — par crainte, parce qu’elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1258,"authors_free":[{"id":1837,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2334,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2335,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie","main_title":{"title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"},"abstract":"Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie tomba dans un d\u00e9clin rapide. Trois g\u00e9n\u00e9rations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9s \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration suivante, Ascl\u00e9pius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-m\u00eame avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve de Proclus.\r\n\r\nNous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, mais ils ne sont gu\u00e8re pour nous que des noms. M\u00eame Damascius, qui \u00e9tait scolarque en l\u2019ann\u00e9e fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes n\u2019\u00e9tait jamais tomb\u00e9e aussi bas que juste avant son accession \u00e0 la chaire.\r\n\r\nTout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que ce d\u00e9clin a continu\u00e9 sans interruption jusqu\u2019en 529 et qu\u2019en 529, lorsque Justinien a publi\u00e9 son illustre \u00e9dit fermant l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils consid\u00e8rent que l\u2019acte de Justinien fut plut\u00f4t de l\u2019euthanasie qu\u2019un assassinat.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re \u00e9tude sur la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie admet sans discussion qu\u2019en 529, la philosophie pa\u00efenne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 succomb\u00e9 sous les coups de la philosophie christianis\u00e9e d\u2019Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les \u00e9tudiants, sauv\u00e9s des griffes de l\u2019impie Damascius, pouvaient d\u00e9sormais \u00eatre guid\u00e9s sur les chemins de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par des chr\u00e9tiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. H\u00e9las ! Cette image \u00e9difiante n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec l\u2019histoire.\r\n\r\nIl est douteux qu\u2019il y ait jamais eu une \u00e9cole chr\u00e9tienne de philosophie \u00e0 Gaza. \u00c9n\u00e9e et Procope \u00e9taient tous deux professeurs de rh\u00e9torique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rh\u00e9teurs (\u00c9piphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux \u00e9taient morts.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement \u00e0 une opinion largement r\u00e9pandue, Philopon ne succ\u00e9da pas \u00e0 la chaire d\u2019Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est rest\u00e9, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de litt\u00e9rature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la th\u00e9ologie \u2014 et vers l\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e9sie.\r\n\r\nEn outre, l\u2019influence de la tradition scolaire \u00e9tait si forte, m\u00eame dans le cas de philosophes chr\u00e9tiens, que les \u00e9crits de Philopon ont exerc\u00e9 une influence \u00e9tonnamment faible sur l\u2019enseignement \u00e0 Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore \u00e0 Alexandrie dans les ann\u00e9es 560, \u00e9tait en effet pa\u00efen, et ses successeurs, \u00c9lie, David, \u00c9tienne, bien que chr\u00e9tiens, continu\u00e8rent \u00e0 enseigner des doctrines comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde et la divinit\u00e9 des corps c\u00e9lestes, qui avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9j\u00e0 depuis longtemps r\u00e9fut\u00e9es par Philopon.\r\n\r\nNous ne d\u00e9couvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en termes grandiloquents comme une synth\u00e8se de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du christianisme.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, il ne saurait \u00eatre question de la vitalit\u00e9 sup\u00e9rieure d\u2019une philosophie chr\u00e9tienne \u00e9crasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l\u2019on compare le travail qui se fait \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes et \u00e0 Alexandrie dans la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du VIe si\u00e8cle \u2014 en n\u00e9gligeant la production des derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es de Philopon, comme \u00e9trang\u00e8re \u00e0 la tradition universitaire proprement dite \u2014, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la r\u00e9putation de Damascius comme professeur (et la comp\u00e9tence scientifique a autant d\u2019importance que l\u2019habilet\u00e9 p\u00e9dagogique), elle est \u00e9tablie par la liste de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Ph\u00e9nicie et de Gaza : un v\u00e9ritable recrutement international.\r\n\r\nAssez \u00e9trangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caract\u00e8re international de l\u2019\u00e9cole de Damascius pour prouver la d\u00e9cadence de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Ath\u00e8nes elle-m\u00eame, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Ath\u00e9niens pour cultiver l\u2019h\u00e9ritage de Platon. C\u2019est ignorer le caract\u00e8re international de la vie universitaire \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, caract\u00e8re bien mis en \u00e9vidence par la Vie d\u2019Isidore \u00e9crite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes.\r\n\r\nEn cet \u00e2ge d\u2019or de la rh\u00e9torique que fut le IVe si\u00e8cle, \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, les grands noms \u00e9taient Julien de Cappadoce, Him\u00e9rius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d\u2019Arm\u00e9nie. \u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s aucun Ath\u00e9nien parmi eux. Proclus lui-m\u00eame \u00e9tait lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t un signe de la sant\u00e9 de ses institutions qu\u2019Ath\u00e8nes p\u00fbt encore attirer des \u00e9trangers de valeur !\r\n\r\nJe voudrais sugg\u00e9rer, en effet, que bien loin que ce f\u00fbt l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie qui f\u00fbt sur son lit de mort en 529, c\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Alexandrie qui \u00e9tait en d\u00e9clin apr\u00e8s la mort d\u2019Ammonius, alors que l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie reprenait vie.\r\n\r\nLes successeurs d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie furent Eutocius le math\u00e9maticien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l\u2019un ni l\u2019autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l\u2019\u00e9nergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et s\u2019\u00e9tait entour\u00e9 d\u2019une \u00e9quipe de disciples d\u00e9vou\u00e9s \u2014 d\u00e9vou\u00e9s, car nous savons qu\u2019ils le suivirent en Perse apr\u00e8s la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nUne illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Ath\u00e8nes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore d\u00e9pendait essentiellement d\u2019Ammonius, dans ses derni\u00e8res \u0153uvres, il s\u2019appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, l\u00e0 encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nIl se peut que Justinien n\u2019ait pas ferm\u00e9 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie par m\u00e9pris, parce qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait moribonde, mais \u2014 et c\u2019est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible \u2014 par crainte, parce qu\u2019elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1258,"section_of":1257,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1257,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuhl_Hadot1971","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1971]}
Title | Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1971 |
Published in | God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy |
Pages | 16-32 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Whittaker, John H. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical Parmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which have survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as was shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, which Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not taught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/otytaZVpHsVfMmh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"439","_score":null,"_source":{"id":439,"authors_free":[{"id":589,"entry_id":439,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"},"abstract":"I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical \r\nParmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which \r\nhave survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as \r\nwas shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, \r\nwhich Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not \r\ntaught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/otytaZVpHsVfMmh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":439,"section_of":144,"pages":"16-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":144,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Whittaker1971b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1971","abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1971]}
Title | The Last Days of the Academy at Athens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1969 |
Published in | Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society |
Pages | 7-29 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
Editor(s) | Kenney, Edward J. , Dawe, Roger D. |
Translator(s) |
Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at Athens in a . d . 529—the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f Monte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and medieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly symbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who left Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely resembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they discovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo sophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects were no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their disappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate return, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were just then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee that they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several misconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, some not even considered. What was Justinian’s motive? Did he give the last push to a tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually succeed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1046","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1046,"authors_free":[{"id":1591,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan ","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2332,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":21,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kenney, Edward J.","free_first_name":"Edward J.","free_last_name":"Kenney","norm_person":{"id":21,"first_name":"Edward J. ","last_name":"Kenney","full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121559602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2333,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":22,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","free_first_name":"Roger D. ","free_last_name":"Dawe","norm_person":{"id":22,"first_name":"Roger D. ","last_name":"Dawe","full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131727796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens","main_title":{"title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"},"abstract":"Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at \r\nAthens in a . d . 529\u2014the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f \r\nMonte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and \r\nmedieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly \r\nsymbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who \r\nleft Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely \r\nresembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they \r\ndiscovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo\u00ad\r\nsophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects \r\nwere no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their \r\ndisappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate \r\nreturn, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were \r\njust then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee \r\nthat they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several \r\nmisconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, \r\nsome not even considered. What was Justinian\u2019s motive? Did he give the last push to \r\na tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually \r\nsucceed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7]","btype":2,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":21,"full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":22,"full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1046,"section_of":1601,"pages":"7-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1601,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kennery_Dawe1969","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1969","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The objects of the Society are the furtherance of classical studies, particularly the discussion and publication of critical researches on the literature and civilization of Greece and Rome. Any classical scholar is eligible for membership. The subscription of a resident in Cambridge is \u00a31 10s. annually, and of a member resident elsewhere, 12s. 6d. annually. Members receive notices of all meetings of the Society and of its publications. Any library may subscribe to the Society and receive copies of its publications. The subscription for libraries is \u00a31 10s. annually.\r\n\r\nThe Society is responsible for two series of publications. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, containing papers read at the Society and other articles by members, appears annually. Contributions intended for the Proceedings should be addressed to Dr. R. D. Dawe, Trinity College, Cambridge. Supplements to the Proceedings, consisting of monographs, appear occasionally, less frequently, and at irregular intervals. This series is designed to accommodate works of intermediate size, i.e., of about 100 pages.\r\n\r\nMembers of the Society are invited to submit proposals for monographs to be published in this series. Proposals should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. Applications for membership, and all other correspondence relating to the Society, should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2Aa8zUMrmYCuniC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1601,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"New Series No. 15","volume":"195","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1969]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1967 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Pages | 448-449 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lloyd, Antony C. |
Editor(s) | Edwards, Paul |
Translator(s) |
"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen tator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius and in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was closed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he returned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His surviving commentaries (on Aristotle’s Categories, Physics, De Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more polemic than would have been suitable for students. His chief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies in his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient philosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla tonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School of the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases but follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of the distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be tween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated (remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- ized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- 94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by which he carries out the task that dominates his work, to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for instance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved mover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. According to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the primary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or proceeding, kind. Simplicius’ interpretation of the De Anima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a valid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented by a metaphysical account of the “separate” intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- ists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result is more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, with Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi fied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here to Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo tion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex amined and were already beginning to suggest relational definitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus on the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, Diels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original views of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle only by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen tary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind of metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things in motion depends on the distinction already referred to be tween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter aspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of succession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic Epictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral philosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi cism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is commonplace for the period. However, it does contain a semipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or metaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been claimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as in the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the One, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but dubiously supports the claim." [the whole entry] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":393,"authors_free":[{"id":516,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","free_first_name":"Antony C.","free_last_name":"Lloyd","norm_person":{"id":465,"first_name":"Antony C.","last_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1052318118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":517,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":237,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Edwards, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Edwards","norm_person":{"id":237,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Edwards","full_name":"Edwards, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"\"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen\u00ad\r\ntator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius \r\nand in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was \r\nclosed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he \r\nreturned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His \r\nsurviving commentaries (on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Physics, \r\nDe Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more \r\npolemic than would have been suitable for students. His \r\nchief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies \r\nin his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient \r\nphilosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School \r\nof the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases \r\nbut follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of \r\nthe distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be\u00ad\r\ntween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated \r\n(remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- \r\nized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- \r\n94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by \r\nwhich he carries out the task that dominates his work, to \r\nreconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for \r\ninstance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved \r\nmover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. \r\nAccording to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the \r\nprimary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or \r\nproceeding, kind. Simplicius\u2019 interpretation of the De \r\nAnima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a \r\nvalid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented \r\nby a metaphysical account of the \u201cseparate\u201d intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- \r\nists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result\r\nis more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, \r\nwith Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi\u00ad\r\nfied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here \r\nto Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo\u00ad\r\ntion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex\u00ad\r\namined and were already beginning to suggest relational \r\ndefinitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus \r\non the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, \r\nDiels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original \r\nviews of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle \r\nonly by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen\u00ad\r\ntary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind \r\nof metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things \r\nin motion depends on the distinction already referred to be\u00ad\r\ntween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter \r\naspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of \r\nsuccession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic \r\nEpictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral \r\nphilosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi\u00ad\r\ncism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is \r\ncommonplace for the period. However, it does contain a \r\nsemipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or \r\nmetaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been \r\nclaimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as \r\nin the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the \r\nOne, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but \r\ndubiously supports the claim.\" [the whole entry]","btype":2,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":237,"full_name":"Edwards, Paul","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":393,"section_of":1371,"pages":"448-449","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edwards1967","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1967","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The first English-language reference of its kind, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy was hailed as \"a remarkable and unique work\" (Saturday Review) that contained \"the international who's who of philosophy and cultural history\" (Library Journal). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TYFlO2oFqfGwvz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1371,"pubplace":"London, New York","publisher":"Crowell-Collier Publishing Company","series":"","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1967]}
Title | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1965 |
Published in | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux |
Pages | VII-CXC |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EzAHeSeExATtJIm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1375","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1375,"authors_free":[{"id":2085,"entry_id":1375,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"},"abstract":"The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1965","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EzAHeSeExATtJIm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1375,"section_of":1374,"pages":"VII-CXC","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1374,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1965","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/W0FrLs9BKUEyoH3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1374,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1965]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1963 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung |
Pages | 909-915 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zeller, Eduard |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines großen Fleißes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein für uns eine unschätzbare Fundgrube von Bruchstücken älterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten über dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgfältige und meist verständige Erklärung des Textes. Aber als Philosoph hält sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gläubiger Verehrer der chaldäischen Göttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben möchte. In der Sache müssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen übereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen. Von dieser Voraussetzung aus weiß Simplicius das Einverständnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene Übereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koinaí phýseis) bedingt sei. Der Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun würde. Auch Aristoteles’ Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gemünzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, verträgt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer höheren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei. Ähnlich verfährt Simplicius überhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei großen philosophischen Autoritäten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren lässt er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Maße ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einwürfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben. Er folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorgänger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl großenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigentümliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat für ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgeführten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl möglich war. Auch seine ausführliche Erörterung über den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zusätze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenwärtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so nähert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache. Um schließlich noch seine Ansicht über den Nous zu erwähnen, so bemüht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verhältnis des Niedrigeren zum Höheren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, über die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten. Er ist ein höchst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein bloßer Nachtreter der Früheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/c2H67ey2uKL9hou |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1450,"authors_free":[{"id":2436,"entry_id":1450,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":413,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeller, Eduard","free_first_name":"Eduard","free_last_name":"Zeller","norm_person":{"id":413,"first_name":"Eduard","last_name":"Zeller,","full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118636383","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines gro\u00dfen Flei\u00dfes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein f\u00fcr uns eine unsch\u00e4tzbare Fundgrube von Bruchst\u00fccken \u00e4lterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten \u00fcber dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgf\u00e4ltige und meist verst\u00e4ndige Erkl\u00e4rung des Textes.\r\n\r\nAber als Philosoph h\u00e4lt sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gl\u00e4ubiger Verehrer der chald\u00e4ischen G\u00f6ttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben m\u00f6chte. In der Sache m\u00fcssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen \u00fcbereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen.\r\n\r\nVon dieser Voraussetzung aus wei\u00df Simplicius das Einverst\u00e4ndnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene \u00dcbereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koina\u00ed ph\u00fdseis) bedingt sei.\r\n\r\nDer Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun w\u00fcrde.\r\n\r\nAuch Aristoteles\u2019 Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gem\u00fcnzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, vertr\u00e4gt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer h\u00f6heren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei.\r\n\r\n\u00c4hnlich verf\u00e4hrt Simplicius \u00fcberhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei gro\u00dfen philosophischen Autorit\u00e4ten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren l\u00e4sst er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Ma\u00dfe ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einw\u00fcrfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben.\r\n\r\nEr folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorg\u00e4nger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl gro\u00dfenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigent\u00fcmliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat f\u00fcr ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgef\u00fchrten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl m\u00f6glich war.\r\n\r\nAuch seine ausf\u00fchrliche Er\u00f6rterung \u00fcber den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zus\u00e4tze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so n\u00e4hert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache.\r\n\r\nUm schlie\u00dflich noch seine Ansicht \u00fcber den Nous zu erw\u00e4hnen, so bem\u00fcht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verh\u00e4ltnis des Niedrigeren zum H\u00f6heren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, \u00fcber die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten.\r\n\r\nEr ist ein h\u00f6chst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein blo\u00dfer Nachtreter der Fr\u00fcheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914]","btype":2,"date":"1963","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/c2H67ey2uKL9hou","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":413,"full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1450,"section_of":207,"pages":"909-915","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":207,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zeller1903","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1903","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1903","abstract":"Das erstmals zwischen 1844 und 1852 erschienene Werk \u203aDie Philosophie der Griechen. Eine Untersuchung \u00fcber Charakter, Gang und Hauptmomente ihrer Entwicklung\u2039 gilt als eine der monumentalsten philosophischen Studien der Geschichte. In nie wieder erreichter Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und Geschlossenheit beschreibt Eduard Zeller hier den Entwicklungsgang der Philosophie Griechenlands. Als \u00dcbersichts- und Grundlagenwerk ist \u203aDer Zeller\u2039 auch heute noch von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung. Hervorhebenswert an der Arbeit Eduard Zellers ist vor allem, dass er eine akribische Quellenarbeit mit systematisch-philosophischem Interesse verbindet. Obwohl ein klassischer Gelehrter des 19. Jahrhunderts, philosophiert er in modernem wissenschaftlichen Sinne. Zeller, der den Begriff \u203aErkenntnistheorie\u2039 \u00fcberhaupt erst in die philosophische Diskussion eingef\u00fchrt hat, hat mit der \u203aPhilosophie der Griechen\u2039 ein Werk geschaffen, dessen Bedeutung auch im 21. Jahrhundert unbestritten ist. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wqWO03gtyLISydF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":207,"pubplace":"Leipzig","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1963]}
Title | Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1958 |
Published in | Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI |
Pages | 365-442 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
Editor(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"244","_score":null,"_source":{"id":244,"authors_free":[{"id":313,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2463,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI","main_title":{"title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1958","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":244,"pubplace":"Padova","publisher":"Liviana","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":244,"section_of":1582,"pages":"365-442","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1582,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"it","title":"Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Nardi1958","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1958","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1582,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"G. G. Sansone","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1958]}
Title | Simplikios, Neplatoniker |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1927 |
Published in | Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus. Zweite Reihe, Fünfter Halbband: Silacenis bis Sparsus |
Pages | 204-213 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Praechter, Karl |
Editor(s) | Wissowa, Georg , Kroll, Wilhelm , Mittelhaus, Karl |
Translator(s) |
Eintrag zu Simplikios in der Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKvSYjVl9KIu03S |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1380","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1380,"authors_free":[{"id":2124,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":293,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Praechter, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Praechter","norm_person":{"id":293,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Praechter","full_name":"Praechter, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116278609","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2128,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":297,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wissowa, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"Wissowa","norm_person":{"id":297,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"Wissowa","full_name":"Wissowa, Georg","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117413755","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2129,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":300,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm ","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Kroll","norm_person":{"id":300,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Kroll","full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116552581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2130,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":301,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Mittelhaus","norm_person":{"id":301,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Mittelhaus","full_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11706355X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios, Neplatoniker","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios, Neplatoniker"},"abstract":"Eintrag zu Simplikios in der Paulys Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft","btype":2,"date":"1927","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKvSYjVl9KIu03S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":293,"full_name":"Praechter, Karl","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":297,"full_name":"Wissowa, Georg","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":300,"full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":301,"full_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1380,"section_of":1381,"pages":"204-213","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1381,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Paulys Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus. Zweite Reihe, F\u00fcnfter Halbband: Silacenis bis Sparsus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1927","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GO1BxyFsBoAXlMx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1381,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Alfred Druckenm\u00fcller Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1927]}
Title | Ioannes Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1917 |
Published in | Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neunter Band Hyaia — Iugum |
Pages | 1768-1795 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gudeman, Alfred |
Editor(s) | Kroll, Wilhelm |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jn8LgJK5DW0lutG |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1525","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1525,"authors_free":[{"id":2650,"entry_id":1525,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":566,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","free_first_name":"Alfred","free_last_name":"Gudeman","norm_person":{"id":566,"first_name":"Alfred","last_name":"Gudeman","full_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102810761","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2651,"entry_id":1525,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":300,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Kroll","norm_person":{"id":300,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Kroll","full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116552581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ioannes Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Ioannes Philoponus"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1917","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jn8LgJK5DW0lutG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":566,"full_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":300,"full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1525,"section_of":1526,"pages":"1768-1795","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1526,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"de","title":"Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neunter Band Hyaia \u2014 Iugum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1916","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DT7g7hn04BY8jPG","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1526,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Metzler","series":"Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1917]}
Title | Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1910 |
Published in | Genethliakon |
Pages | 105-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Praechter, Karl |
Editor(s) | Robert, Carl |
Translator(s) |
Karl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity. [from the notices of the book] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZUNcPDq2qaf1DRB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1065","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1065,"authors_free":[{"id":1615,"entry_id":1065,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":293,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Praechter, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Praechter","norm_person":{"id":293,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Praechter","full_name":"Praechter, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116278609","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1616,"entry_id":1065,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":294,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robert, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Robert","norm_person":{"id":294,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Robert","full_name":"Robert, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116575956","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"Karl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity. [from the notices of the book]","btype":2,"date":"1910","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZUNcPDq2qaf1DRB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":293,"full_name":"Praechter, Karl","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":294,"full_name":"Robert, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1065,"section_of":1600,"pages":"105-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1600,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Genethliakon","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Robert1910","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1910","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This is a series of studies on different subjects dedicated by friends and former pupils to Carl Robert on his attaining his sixtieth birthday. The first two, by Benedictus Niese and Georg Wissowa respectively, deal with three chapters in the history of Elis and Naevius and the Metelli. Both these historical inquiries are characterized by the employment of similar methods of criticism. Certain events, said to have taken place at a particular period, are held never to have taken place at that time, but to have been carried back from the history of a later day. Thus, Niese believes that the stories of the repeated quarrels between Elis and Pisa have no historical foundation, except in the single instance of the years 365\u2013364 B.C., when the Pisatae for a brief period formed a separate community and, in conjunction with the Arcadians, carried out the Olympic Games. Wissowa, in Naevius and the Metelli, endeavors to show that the story of the poet's quarrel with that house is a figment derived from a later period. The line fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules is, he thinks, quite pointless in relation to the Metelli of Naevius' day. It would apply forcibly, however, to the period of the Gracchi, in which the Metelli were singularly prominent as holders of high office. The traditional reply, malum dabunt Metelli Naevio poetae, Wissowa attributes to Caesius Bassus in Nero's time, when it was composed as a model of a Saturnian line. It may be suggested that the above method of historical criticism (very popular at the present time) may be carried a little too far. It is true that the historian is frequently tempted to add to the glory of his country in early times, but is it true that there is an equal tendency to fabricate history when no such motive can be assigned? The arguments of both Niese and Wissowa are ingenious, but hardly convincing.\r\n\r\nBechtel subjects the names of persons as published by Frankel in the fourth volume of I.O. to a searching criticism. A fair number of errors, certain or probable, are pointed out, but they are perhaps scarcely serious enough (consideration being had to the magnitude of the work) to justify the rather severe tone of criticism employed. Bechtel's proposed corrections are, however, likely to win approval for the most part. Otto Kern discusses the origin of the collection of hymns comprehended under the title \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9. These were apparently designed for the use of a body of mystae devoted to the service of Dionysos. The occurrence of the names of the goddess Hipta and of Dionysos Erikepaios both in these hymns and in inscriptions recently discovered in Asia Minor leads Kern to look to Asia Minor rather than to Egypt for their origin. The connection between the later Orphism and magical inscriptions is rightly pointed out by Kern. There is no doubt that the Gnostic and magical inscriptions on metal foil are a continuation of the Orphic inscriptions on similar material.\r\n\r\nKarl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity.\r\n\r\nEduard Meyer chooses for his study Hesiod's Works and Days, and in particular the part dealing with the Five Races of Mankind. In general, it may be remarked that his interpretations do not differ greatly from those of the late Dr. Adam in his Religious Teachers of Greece. The central idea of the poem is, according to Meyer, 'the dignity of labour'; according to Adam, 'Justice between man and man.' These views, it may be pointed out, are united in the Platonic conception of Justice as consisting in the doing by each man of the work nature intended him to do. These broodings over the relation of man to man (says Wissowa) lead the poet to take a wider view of the development of mankind in his description of the Five Ages. The golden and silver ages are a picture of decline in a race of ideal beings; the bronze and iron ages are a picture of a decline in morals accompanying an improvement in culture, a phenomenon noted by the poet from his own observation. The heroic age is interpolated between these two in order to suit the general belief in its existence; it is also a ray of hope piercing the gloom of Hesiod's pessimism. Professor Meyer, as Professor Mair in his recent translation of Hesiod, emphasizes the almost Hebraic spirit of religion pervading the poem.\r\n\r\nUlrich Wilcken devotes an extremely interesting article to a fresh study of a Greek papyrus found by Prof. Petrie at Hawara in 1889. This was at first regarded by Prof. Sayce as a fragment of a lost history of Sicily, perhaps that of Timaeus. Dr. Wilcken, however, in that same year expressed the opinion that the fragment really formed part of a descriptive guide to Athens and the Peiraeus. This conclusion is amply confirmed by the present very ingenious study. Dr. Wilcken successfully distinguishes portions describing the Peiraeus (including the mention of an otherwise unknown sundial), Munichia (with a mention of 'the famous shrine of Artemis'), and the circuit of the Peiraeus wall, which is here said to measure ninety-odd stades, whereas the Themistoclean wall described by Thucydides measured but sixty. Hence, the wall described must be the wall of Konon. The manuscript goes on to describe the Long Walls and the Phaleric wall (mentioning the hill Sikelia) and breaks off just at the beginning of an account of 'the town of Theseus.' It is probable that this guide was written at the beginning of the third century B.C., though the papyrus is to be dated at about 100 A.D. The name of the author must remain uncertain, though it is conceivably the work of Diodorus the Periegetes.\r\n\r\nThe concluding study by Benno Erdmann on the philosophy of Spinoza falls outside the scope of this Journal. [notices of book]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wxEGw3MZ3aRDjPW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1600,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Weidmann","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1910]}
Title | Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Latin |
Date | 1804 |
Published in | Bibliotheca Graeca. Sive notitia scriptorum ueterum Graecorum, Vol. 9. Editio nova, curante Gottlieb Christophero Harles. |
Pages | 529-568 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fabricius, Johann Albert |
Editor(s) | Fabricius, Johann Albert , Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/svsBTP48ixwjLF5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"72","_score":null,"_source":{"id":72,"authors_free":[{"id":80,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":392,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","free_first_name":"Johann Albert","free_last_name":"Fabricius","norm_person":{"id":392,"first_name":"Johann Albert ","last_name":"Fabricius","full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2446,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":392,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert","free_first_name":"Johann Albert","free_last_name":"Fabricius","norm_person":{"id":392,"first_name":"Johann Albert ","last_name":"Fabricius","full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2447,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":482,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","free_first_name":"Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","free_last_name":"Harless","norm_person":{"id":482,"first_name":"Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","last_name":"Harless","full_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116476508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti","main_title":{"title":"Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1804","language":"Latin","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/svsBTP48ixwjLF5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":392,"full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":392,"full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":482,"full_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":72,"pubplace":"Hamburgi","publisher":"Apud Carolum Ernestum Bohn","series":"Bibliotheca Graeca","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":72,"section_of":1451,"pages":"529-568","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1451,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"la","title":"Bibliotheca Graeca. Sive notitia scriptorum ueterum Graecorum, Vol. 9. Editio nova, curante Gottlieb Christophero Harles.","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fabricius 1704","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1804","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lgGhcosZH4ekgKK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1451,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Carolum Ernestum Bohn","series":"Bibliotheca Graeca","volume":"9","edition_no":"nova","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1804]}
Title | Les relatifs dans les Catégories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 167-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Caujolle-Zaslawsky, F. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1564","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1564,"authors_free":[{"id":2731,"entry_id":1564,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, F. ","free_first_name":"F.","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Les relatifs dans les Cat\u00e9gories","main_title":{"title":"Les relatifs dans les Cat\u00e9gories"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1564,"section_of":302,"pages":"167-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[-2147483648]}
Title | Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
Pages | 201-219 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | David J. Furley |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1585","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1585,"authors_free":[{"id":2781,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"David J. Furley","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":null},{"id":2782,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":null},{"id":2783,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1585,"section_of":334,"pages":"201-219","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[-2147483648]}
Title | "Simplikios" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklopädie der Antike |
Pages | 578-580 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Schneider, Helmuth , Cancik, Hubert |
Translator(s) |
Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag über Simplikios in "Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike". |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"642","_score":null,"_source":{"id":642,"authors_free":[{"id":915,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":916,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":161,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schneider, Helmuth","free_first_name":"Helmuth","free_last_name":"Schneider","norm_person":{"id":161,"first_name":"Helmuth ","last_name":"Schneider","full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133788628","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":917,"entry_id":642,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":162,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cancik, Hubert","free_first_name":"Hubert","free_last_name":"Cancik","norm_person":{"id":162,"first_name":"Hubert ","last_name":"Cancik","full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119546124","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Ein kurzer Eintrag Eintrag \u00fcber Simplikios in \"Der neue Pauly: Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike\".","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":161,"full_name":"Schneider, Helmuth ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":162,"full_name":"Cancik, Hubert ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":642,"section_of":1586,"pages":"578-580","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1586,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der Neue Pauly, Enzyklop\u00e4die der Antike","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cancik_Schneider_2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"B\u00e4nde 1-12\/II, Altertum - Nachweis der pr\u00e4genden Einfl\u00fcsse des Orients auf die griechisch-r\u00f6mische Kultur. Wirkung dieser Kultur auf Kelten, Germanen, Slawen, Araber, auf Judentum und Christentum; Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sozialgeschichte, Privatleben in der Antike; die byzantinische Kultur; Entwicklungsgeschichte der philosophischen Begriffe; gleichrangige Behandlung der schriftlichen, bildlichen und dinglichen Zeugnisse. Mit einer F\u00fclle von Abbildungen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4v2zjjGGWHFJBz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1586,"pubplace":"Stuttgart; Weimar","publisher":"J. B. Metzler","series":"","volume":"Band 11 Sam-Tal","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\"Simplikios\""]}
Title | "Simplikios" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1975 |
Published in | Der kleine Pauly, Band 5 |
Pages | 205 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dörrie, Heinrich |
Editor(s) | Konrat Ziegler |
Translator(s) |
Simplikios (Σιμπλίκιος), Neuplatoniker, Schüler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen übergesiedelt sein. Als das Schließungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des Königs Chosroes I., eine neue Stätte für philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begründen. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins Römische Reich zurück, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrtätigkeit auszuüben. Alle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten. Verloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles’ Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes’ τέχνη und zu Iamblichos’ περί τής Πυθαγόρου αἱρέσεως. Erhalten und sämtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare: De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII). Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII). Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X). De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI). Das ungewöhnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum Ἐγχειρίδιον des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet. Viele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen für Anfänger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit höheren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, für künftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. „Gerade seine nüchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner großen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem höchst achtenswerten Kommentator.“ (K. Praechter). In engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in beträchtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker³, 638–640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides für uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken. Die Beweisführung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche σοφία und der gleiche λόγος spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt für die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie für Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen – selbstverständlich auch Epiktet – immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verkündet haben. Außer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende Würdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1292","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1292,"authors_free":[{"id":1881,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":69,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","free_first_name":"Heinrich ","free_last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","norm_person":{"id":69,"first_name":"Heinrich ","last_name":"D\u00f6rrie","full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118526375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2697,"entry_id":1292,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Konrat Ziegler","free_first_name":"Konrat","free_last_name":"Ziegler","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"\"Simplikios\"","main_title":{"title":"\"Simplikios\""},"abstract":"Simplikios (\u03a3\u03b9\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03af\u03ba\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2), Neuplatoniker, Sch\u00fcler des Ammonios, Sohnes des Hermeias. Simplikios muss von Alexandria nach Athen \u00fcbergesiedelt sein. Als das Schlie\u00dfungsedikt von 529 erging, war er Mitglied der Akademie. Mit anderen Akademikern versuchte er, im persischen Reich, vermutlich zu Ktesiphon am Hofe des K\u00f6nigs Chosroes I., eine neue St\u00e4tte f\u00fcr philosophische Forschung und Lehre zu begr\u00fcnden. Das schlug fehl; 533 kehrte Simplikios mit seinen Kollegen ins R\u00f6mische Reich zur\u00fcck, wo es ihm untersagt war, eine Lehrt\u00e4tigkeit auszu\u00fcben.\r\n\r\nAlle Schriften von Simplikios, die erhalten sind, wurden nach 533 verfasst. Er war der letzte Platoniker, der in seinen Schriften das Christentum angriff. Seine Werke sind durchweg Kommentare, allerdings ist kein Kommentar von ihm zu einem Dialog Platons bekannt; vermutlich erschien es ihm als zwecklos, mit den Kommentaren des Proklos in Wettstreit zu treten.\r\n\r\nVerloren ist sein Hauptwerk, der Kommentar zu Aristoteles\u2019 Metaphysik. In Handschriften erhalten, aber noch nicht ediert, sind ein Kommentar zu Hermogenes\u2019 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 und zu Iamblichos\u2019 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af \u03c4\u03ae\u03c2 \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Erhalten und s\u00e4mtlich in den Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca ediert sind folgende Kommentare:\r\n\r\n De caelo, ed. J. L. Heiberg, 1894 (CAG VII).\r\n Categoriae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch, 1907 (CAG VIII).\r\n Physica, ed. H. Diels, 1882, 1895 (CAG IX und X).\r\n De anima, ed. M. Hayduck, 1882 (CAG XI).\r\n\r\nDas ungew\u00f6hnlichste Werk von Simplikios ist sein Kommentar zum \u1f18\u03b3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd des Epiktet. Die dringend notwendige Neuausgabe wird von Frau Dr. I. Hadot vorbereitet.\r\n\r\nViele Kommentare anderer Platoniker sind aus Vorlesungen f\u00fcr Anf\u00e4nger hervorgegangen. Im Vergleich dazu stehen die Kommentare von Simplikios auf einem weit h\u00f6heren Niveau. Ihm, der nicht mehr lehren durfte, ging es darum, f\u00fcr k\u00fcnftige Gelehrte zu schreiben. \u201eGerade seine n\u00fcchternere Weise macht ihn im Verein mit seiner gro\u00dfen Gelehrsamkeit zu einem h\u00f6chst achtenswerten Kommentator.\u201c (K. Praechter).\r\n\r\nIn engem Zusammenhang damit steht, dass Simplikios vor allem im Kommentar zur Physik Zitate aus vorsokratischen Philosophen in betr\u00e4chtlichem Umfang in seinen Text aufgenommen hat (Stellenverzeichnis bei Diels Vorsokratiker\u00b3, 638\u2013640). Dass Empedokles und Parmenides f\u00fcr uns mehr sind als nur Namen, ist einzig Simplikios zu verdanken.\r\n\r\nDie Beweisf\u00fchrung von Simplikios tendiert dahin, dass aus allen Philosophen die gleiche \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1 und der gleiche \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 spricht wie aus Platon. Das gilt f\u00fcr die Vorsokratiker ebenso wie f\u00fcr Aristoteles: Wo dieser Platon widerspricht, handelt es sich nur um eine Diskrepanz in Worten. So wird seine riesige Arbeit zu einer imposanten Apologie der Lehre, dass alle Philosophen \u2013 selbstverst\u00e4ndlich auch Epiktet \u2013 immer nur die eine, stets sich selbst gleiche, unwandelbare Wahrheit verk\u00fcndet haben.\r\n\r\nAu\u00dfer dem RE-Artikel von K. Praechter gibt es keine zusammenfassende W\u00fcrdigung von Simplikios. [the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSQQwhdCGL94DDh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":69,"full_name":"D\u00f6rrie, Heinrich ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1292,"section_of":264,"pages":"205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":264,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Der kleine Pauly, Band 5","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sontheimer1975","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1975","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nT4V3xwm4Jp1gS4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":264,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen","publisher":"Druckenm\u00fcller","series":"Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\"Simplikios\""]}
Title | 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 141-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco. The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22. Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place. The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position. The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V). The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"]}
Title | A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 541-564 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Roueché, Mossman |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called ‘a very shadowy figure’. From the time of Hermann Usener’s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an ‘ecumenical teacher’ in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to ‘Stephanus’ in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this‘evidence’ and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1527","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1527,"authors_free":[{"id":2659,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rouech\u00e9, Mossman","free_first_name":"Mossman","free_last_name":"Rouech\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2660,"entry_id":1527,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher","main_title":{"title":"A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher"},"abstract":"The role played by Stephanus the Philosopher in the history of philosophy in the sixth century has been poorly studied. Th e clearest indication of this is the absence of any entry for Stephanus in either the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the recent Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. He is universally acknowledged to be the author of an extant commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione but beyond that, there has been considerable uncertainty concerning the identity, the date and the works attributed to someone who has been called \u2018a very shadowy figure\u2019. From the time of Hermann Usener\u2019s classic dissertation, De Stephano Alexandrino, interest in Stephanus as a philosopher has been over- shadowed by interest in his non- philosophical activities. These include his supposed appointment as an \u2018ecumenical teacher\u2019 in Constantinople during the reign of Heraclius and his authorship of certain astrological, astronomical, alchemical and medical works that are attributed to \u2018Stephanus\u2019 in some manuscripts. It has recently been shown that the arguments for ascribing to him these non- philosophical activities are based on anachronistic evidence and that the conclusions are no longer valid. The removal of this\u2018evidence\u2019 and the conclusions drawn from it provides a timely opportunity to examine afresh the genuine evidence that we have for his life and works as a philosopher and to draw some important conclusions regarding his influence. Far from being a shadowy figure, Stephanus was an important philosopher in sixth century Alexandria. He was a student of John Philoponus and, as one of the Christian successors of Olympiodorus, he continued the Christianisation of the introductory philosophical curriculum. His lectures covered the entire Organon and became the source of a philosophical vocabulary widely used by Christian theologians, including Maximus the Confessor and John Damascene, during the seventh and eighth centuries. Through translations into Syriac and Arabic, his commentaries continued to influence Syrian and Arabic philosophers well into the mediaeval period. [introduction p. 541-542]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N5kDdYi5KDU6EBg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1527,"section_of":1419,"pages":"541-564","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A Philosophical Portrait of Stephanus the Philosopher"]}
Title | A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella |
Pages | 553-560 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Minunno, Giuseppe |
Editor(s) | Loretz, Oswald , Ribichini, Sergio , Watson, Wilfred G. E. , Zamora, José Antonio |
Translator(s) |
Writing about time, Aristotle noted that when someone is unaware of any change in his state of mind, he does not realise that time has elapsed, as happened to those who were recorded in Sardinia as sleeping near the “heroes.” On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval. Aristotle’s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius’ commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle’s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes ὀνείρων ἕνεκεν ἢ ἄλλης τινὸς χρείας; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (φαντασίαν καθευδόντων παρεχόμενα). Tertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"813","_score":null,"_source":{"id":813,"authors_free":[{"id":1205,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":527,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"Minunno","norm_person":{"id":527,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"Minunno","full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038751004","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1206,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":523,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Loretz, Oswald","free_first_name":"Oswald","free_last_name":"Loretz","norm_person":{"id":523,"first_name":"Oswald","last_name":"Loretz","full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119014394","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1207,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":524,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","free_first_name":"Sergio","free_last_name":"Ribichini","norm_person":{"id":524,"first_name":"Sergio","last_name":"Ribichini","full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1197574263","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2513,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":525,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","free_first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","free_last_name":"Watson","norm_person":{"id":525,"first_name":"Wilfred G. E.","last_name":"Watson","full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1023330482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2514,"entry_id":813,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":526,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","free_last_name":"Zamora","norm_person":{"id":526,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Antonio","last_name":"Zamora","full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114954488","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)","main_title":{"title":"A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"},"abstract":"Writing about time, Aristotle noted that when someone is unaware of any change in his state of mind, he does not realise that time has elapsed, as happened to those who were recorded in Sardinia as sleeping near the \u201cheroes.\u201d On awakening, they connected the moment when they had fallen asleep to the moment when they awoke and therefore did not notice the interval.\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s meagre reference does not indicate either who these heroes were or the reason for sleeping near them, but some more information on the matter is provided by commentators on Aristotle. While Temistius\u2019 commentary gives no more than a paraphrase of Aristotle\u2019s text, Philoponus claims that these persons were sick people who went and slept near the heroes. He also claims that, after having slept for five days uninterruptedly, they recovered. Simplicius believes that people slept near the heroes \u1f40\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u1f15\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u1f22 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2; furthermore, he asserts that the heroes mentioned by Aristotle were the nine sons whom Herakles begot by the daughters of Thespios. They died in Sardinia, where their corpses remained uncorrupted and intact, giving them the appearance of sleepers (\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1).\r\n\r\nTertullian, also, makes a reference to Aristotle who, according to him, mentioned incubatores of the sanctuary (fanum) of a Sardinian hero having the power to deprive them of dreams (visionibus privantem). [introduction p. 553-554]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zgzJrhACQcU9nqT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":527,"full_name":"Minunno, Giuseppe","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":523,"full_name":"Loretz, Oswald","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":524,"full_name":"Ribichini, Sergio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":525,"full_name":"Watson, Wilfred G. E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":526,"full_name":"Zamora, Jos\u00e9 Antonio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":813,"section_of":330,"pages":"553-560","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ritual, Religion and Reason: Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Xella2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"Anl\u00e4sslich eines besonderen Geburtstag von Paolo Xella widmen ihm seine Kollegen und Freunde eine Festschrift. Den Interessen des bekannten Gelehrten folgend ist das Buch in drei Abschnitte unterteilt, in \"Arch\u00e4ologie - Kunstgeschichte - Numismatik\", \"Philologie - Epigraphik\" und \"History - Die Geschichte der Religionen - Historiographie\". Mehr als 50 Artikel liegen den Fokus vor allem auf die Welt der ph\u00f6nizischen Levante bis nach Spanien. Neben einer gro\u00dfen Zahl von Aufs\u00e4tzen in italienischen Sprache sind Forschungsergebnisse in Englisch, Deutsch und Franz\u00f6sisch zu verzeichnen. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iUTyM3hPAwKbnMb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":330,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnster","publisher":"Ugarit","series":"Alter Orient und Altes Testament","volume":"404","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A note on ancient Sardinian incubation (Aristotle, Physica IV 11)"]}
Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Aristotle and after |
Pages | 181-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice. To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows: The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes. Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution. Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/roAfpopRonK2aKn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"]}
Title | Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot |
Pages | 97-100 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc |
Editor(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert |
Translator(s) |
This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus‘ concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1106","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1106,"authors_free":[{"id":1671,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1672,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1673,"entry_id":1106,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)","main_title":{"title":"Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"},"abstract":"This text is an addendum to the book Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8) p. 109. It explores Plotinus\u2018 concept of substance and non-substance, good and evil, and the principle of better and worse things. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ahDdnxIxJ6Y3VGD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1106,"section_of":301,"pages":"97-100","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Addendum: Simplicius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium (CAG 8), V, P. 109, 5-110, 25 (Kalbfleish)"]}
Title | Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Neoplatonic Socrates |
Pages | 127-142 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lawrence, Marilynn |
Editor(s) | Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold |
Translator(s) |
This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hnBeShzJI9WChDr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hnBeShzJI9WChDr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"]}
Title | Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 90-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta tors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could hardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be wrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied at other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous issue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the stimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a clearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved accidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the appetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla tonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a few pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the question whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per ception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus’ account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes Alexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one piece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could take a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples of texts where Alexander’s views of the De anima were discussed by more than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer picture of how far the different commentators were prepared to accept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between these commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"805","_score":null,"_source":{"id":805,"authors_free":[{"id":1191,"entry_id":805,"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":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"These are a few examples of how the Neoplatonist commenta\u00ad\r\ntors confronted Alexander on matters where differences could \r\nhardly fail to arise. What happens is clear enough. But it would be \r\nwrong to think that these principles of interpretation are not applied \r\nat other points in the work. Let us take an apparently innocuous \r\nissue like the section where Aristotle discusses locomotion under the \r\nstimulus of the appetitive faculty (433 b 8sqq.). Alexander, giving a \r\nclearly Aristotelian explanation, said that the faculty was moved \r\naccidentally. Plutarch differed, and said that the activity of the \r\nappetitive faculty is movement: this Simplicius describes as a Pla\u00ad\r\ntonic explanation, and prefers it (302,23-30).44 On the other hand, a \r\nfew pages below Simplicius prefers Alexander to Plutarch on the \r\nquestion whether moving but ungenerated entities have sense-per\u00ad\r\nception (320,33-34): we have already looked at his and Stephanus\u2019 account of this passage.45 As we indicated, Stephanus there quotes \r\nAlexander only to disagree with him, and here we have at least one \r\npiece of evidence to show that Neoplatonist commentators could \r\ntake a different view of the same passage. If we had more examples \r\nof texts where Alexander\u2019s views of the De anima were discussed by \r\nmore than one of his successors, we should be able to form a clearer \r\npicture of how far the different commentators were prepared to \r\naccept them, and thus incidentally of the precise differences between \r\nthese commentators themselves on the points at issue. [conclusion p. 105-106]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yyFedFSkP8qo8dn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":805,"section_of":189,"pages":"90-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Alexander of Aphrodisias in the later Greek commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 217-235 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée : Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours. Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles. Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 : « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου). Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues : Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel, Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse. La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel. Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde. Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non. [introduction p. 217-219] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"Les commentaires aristot\u00e9liciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement diff\u00e9rents si l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien n\u2019avait pas eu acc\u00e8s aux commentaires d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tudiant le plus attentif d\u2019Aristote \u00bb et ses abondantes r\u00e9f\u00e9rences aux explications de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien montrent de mani\u00e8re \u00e9loquente que les commentaires de ce dernier \u00e9taient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d\u2019expliquer plusieurs difficult\u00e9s du texte d\u2019Aristote, exception faite des cas o\u00f9 Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-m\u00eame) Platon. Dans l\u2019un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprim\u00e9e :\r\n\r\n Je crois qu\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle mani\u00e8re, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, les discours d\u2019Aristote. Pourtant, \u00e0 propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu\u2019il ne respecte plus le but de l\u2019antilogie d\u2019Aristote, but qui vise l\u2019apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte \u00e0 Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu\u2019il n\u2019essaie pas uniquement de r\u00e9futer, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fr\u00e9quemment m\u00eame pas le sens apparent de son discours.\r\n\r\nPar l\u2019emploi de l\u2019adverbe \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00abmalicieusement\u00bb, \u00abavec perfidie\u00bb), Simplicius sugg\u00e8re \u00e0 ses lecteurs qu\u2019Alexandre connaissait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 le vrai objectif des critiques d\u2019Aristote, qu\u2019il a pourtant cach\u00e9 \u00e0 ses propres lecteurs \u00e0 cause de son appartenance \u00e0 une secte philosophique, \u00e0 savoir celle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens. Les critiques d\u2019Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci p\u00e9dagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en \u0153uvre pour prot\u00e9ger les \u00e2mes philosophantes des contresens qu\u2019elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compr\u00e9hensibles.\r\n\r\nLes critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l\u2019\u00e2me, comme dans le passage pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment cit\u00e9, o\u00f9 Aristote, selon l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre \u00e0 une critique apparente du Tim\u00e9e 36e2-4 :\r\n\r\n \u00ab [L\u2019\u00e2me], tiss\u00e9e \u00e0 travers le ciel, du centre \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 [\u2026] commen\u00e7a une vie perp\u00e9tuelle et raisonnable \u00bb (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u2026] \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\r\n\r\nSi Aristote a ainsi critiqu\u00e9 Platon, c\u2019est pour que les philosophes d\u00e9butants ne pensent pas, \u00e0 cause de l\u2019usage en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 m\u00e9taphorique du participe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (\u00abtiss\u00e9e\u00bb), que l\u2019\u00e2me du monde, mat\u00e9riellement pr\u00e9sente dans le corps c\u00e9leste, le contraigne \u00e0 se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux cons\u00e9quences non voulues :\r\n\r\n Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,\r\n Que l\u2019\u00e2me, exer\u00e7ant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.\r\n\r\nLa critique d\u2019Aristote concerne aussi la th\u00e8se, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut \u00ab engendr\u00e9 \u00bb (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) dans le temps, th\u00e8se qu\u2019Aristote attribue \u00e0 Platon seulement \u00e0 un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degr\u00e9 de connaissance des \u00e2mes philosophantes. Ces derni\u00e8res n\u2019arrivent pas encore \u00e0 saisir le sens de \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 ce qui n\u2019est pas \u00ab auto-constituant \u00bb (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), mais qui re\u00e7oit son existence d\u2019une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9, aussi sous un mode intemporel.\r\n\r\nDu point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de pr\u00e9liminaire une fausse interpr\u00e9tation de Platon, afin que les \u00e9tudiants ne soient pas amen\u00e9s \u00e0 croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation du monde.\r\n\r\nLes critiques que Simplicius adresse \u00e0 Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au trait\u00e9 Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, sont toutes li\u00e9es au fait que l\u2019Aphrodisien interpr\u00e8te Aristote \u00e0 la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le probl\u00e8me philosophique que nous nous proposons d\u2019examiner ici, \u00e0 savoir celui de savoir si l\u2019univers a une cause efficiente ou non.\r\n[introduction p. 217-219]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"]}
Title | An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 341-357 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of Neoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy as it developed in the schools of Athens in particular» but also Alexandria. These innovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets» but also to philosophi cal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new metaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy and insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli gious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was» more over, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon of texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo sophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging to a Pythagorean tradition— a tradition which to some extent was of his own construal. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer tain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. Indeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra dition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival Porphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound study. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them within the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, Aristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, who were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas were incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted different Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating them diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aCdD22AdndA4ijA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"935","_score":null,"_source":{"id":935,"authors_free":[{"id":1387,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1388,"entry_id":935,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine","main_title":{"title":"An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (ccl 245-320) is sometimes called the second founder of \r\nNeoplatonism.1 His innovations were essential to late Neoplatonic philosophy \r\nas it developed in the schools of Athens in particular\u00bb but also Alexandria. These \r\ninnovations do not just pertain to philosophical tenets\u00bb but also to philosophi\u00ad\r\ncal method and style. Iamblichus defined stricter exegetical rules and new \r\nmetaphysical laws. He also created an alliance between philosophy and theurgy \r\nand insisted on the philosophical value of various religious traditions and reli\u00ad\r\ngious-philosophical texts like the Chaldaean oracles. Iamblichus was\u00bb more\u00ad\r\nover, decisive in shaping the school curriculum and, more generally, the canon \r\nof texts that, whether philosophical or religious, carried authority for philo\u00ad\r\nsophical research. He, for instance, systematically included texts belonging \r\nto a Pythagorean tradition\u2014 a tradition which to some extent was of his own \r\nconstrual. His selection of philosophically important texts was in line with cer\u00ad\r\ntain earlier developments, but it was Iamblichus who established a real canon. \r\nIndeed, after Iamblichus the canon remained more or less stable.If we look at the importance assigned to Aristotle and the Peripatetic tra\u00ad\r\ndition, it is clear that the difference between Iamblichus and his arch-rival \r\nPorphyry does not reside in which texts were held to be worthy of profound \r\nstudy. Hie difference is situated rather in the role and status attributed to them \r\nwithin the Platonic philosophical system. From the early Imperial era onward, \r\nAristotle was seen by most Platonists as an ally, unlike the Stoics and Epicureans, \r\nwho were regarded as opponents. Yet the extent to which Aristotelian ideas \r\nwere incorporated varied greatly. Different parts of Aristotle's thought attracted \r\ndifferent Platonists and the strategies used for integrating and assimilating \r\nthem diverged. Here Iamblichus made his mark, as will become clear below. [Introduction, p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aCdD22AdndA4ijA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":935,"section_of":304,"pages":"341-357","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Intellective Perspective on Aristotle: Iamblichus the Divine"]}
Title | An Introduction to Aspasius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics |
Pages | 1-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Alberti, Antonina , Sharples, Robert W. |
Translator(s) |
The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius’ contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle’s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"633","_score":null,"_source":{"id":633,"authors_free":[{"id":893,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":894,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":506,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alberti, Antonina","free_first_name":"Antonina","free_last_name":"Alberti","norm_person":{"id":506,"first_name":"Antonina","last_name":"Alberti","full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":895,"entry_id":633,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"An Introduction to Aspasius","main_title":{"title":"An Introduction to Aspasius"},"abstract":"The text, An Introduction to Aspasius, explores his life, works, and his Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It examines Aspasius\u2019 contributions to ethical philosophy and his relationship with Aristotle\u2019s texts, highlighting his influence on the interpretation and transmission of Aristotelian thought. [derived from the whole text]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hbcmVxtFs2Lthsj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":506,"full_name":"Alberti, Antonina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":633,"section_of":286,"pages":"1-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":286,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle's Ethics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Alberti_Sharples_1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This book comprises essays on the nature of Aspasius\u2019 commentary, his interpretation of Aristotle, and his own place in the history of thought. The contributions are in English or Italian.\r\n\r\nAspasius\u2019 commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is the earliest ancient commentary on Aristotle of which extensive parts survive in their original form. It is important both for the history of commentary as a genre and for the history of philosophical thought in the first two centuries A.D.; it is also still valuable as what its author intended it to be, an aid in interpreting the Ethics. All three aspects are explored by the essays.\r\n\r\nThe book is not formally a commentary on Aspasius\u2019 commentary; but between them the essays consider the interpretation of numerous problematic or significant passages. Full indices will enable readers quickly to locate discussion of particular parts of Aspasius\u2019 work. This volume of essays will form a natural complement to the first ever translation of Aspasius\u2019 commentary into any modern language, currently in preparation by Paul Mercken.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sA4gaXkwHHMBbmx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":286,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["An Introduction to Aspasius"]}
Title | Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday |
Pages | 3-20 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schofield, Malcom |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. , Runia, David T. |
Translator(s) |
Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately associate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ runs to less than three full pages of text, and the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is one of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of Raven’s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does not refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood’s or Furth’s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld takes as his topic, ‘Anaxagoras’ Other World’ seems to me much the most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In what follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its interpretation of the mysterious ‘other world’, and against some of the alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1036","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1036,"authors_free":[{"id":1567,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1568,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1570,"entry_id":1036,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":30,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Runia, David T.","free_first_name":"David T.","free_last_name":"Runia","norm_person":{"id":30,"first_name":"David T.","last_name":"Runia","full_name":"Runia, David T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113181515","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited","main_title":{"title":"Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"},"abstract":"Very short papers are not what his readers most immediately \r\nassociate with the name of Jaap Mansfeld. But his piece entitled \r\n\u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 runs to less than three full pages of text, \r\nand the notes cover only half a page more.1 Perhaps its brevity is \r\none of the reasons for its neglect. Schofield in his light revision of \r\nRaven\u2019s chapter on Anaxagoras in The Presocratic Philosophers does \r\nnot refer to it.2 Nor do more recent articles such as Inwood\u2019s or \r\nFurth\u2019s.3 The neglect is unfortunate. Of the difficult text Mansfeld \r\ntakes as his topic, \u2018Anaxagoras\u2019 Other World\u2019 seems to me much \r\nthe most persuasive account available in the scholarly literature. In \r\nwhat follows I shall advance further considerations in favour of its \r\ninterpretation of the mysterious \u2018other world\u2019, and against some of \r\nthe alternatives favoured in other quarters. [p. 3]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3yCRGxvPNrTq61L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":30,"full_name":"Runia, David T.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1036,"section_of":162,"pages":"3-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":162,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra\/Horst\/Runia1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"During the past three decades Jaap Mansfeld, Professor of Ancient Philosophy in Utrecht, has built up a formidable reputation as a leading scholar in his field. His work has concentrated on the Presocratics, Hellenistic Philosophy, the sources of our knowledge of ancient philosophy (esp. doxography) and the history of scholarship.\r\nIn honour of his sixtieth birthday, colleagues and friends have contributed a collection of articles which represent the state of the art in the study of the history of ancient philosophy and frequently concentrate on subjects in which the honorand has made important discoveries.\r\nThe 22 contributors include M. Baltes, J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, W.M. Calder III, J. Dillon, P.L. Donini, J. Glucker, A.A. Long, L.M. de Rijk, D. Sedley, P. Schrijvers, and M. Vegetti. The volume concludes with a complete bibliography of Jaap Mansfeld's scholarly work so far. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h3vavPv0hEyKsdh","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":162,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"72","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Anaxagoras' Other World Revisited"]}
Title | Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | A Companion to Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 20-33 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mejer, Jørgen |
Editor(s) | Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context of the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the second century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote biographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times of their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry’s life of Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in four books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have biographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not only collected and edited Plotinus’ writings at the end of the third century ce, he also wrote a vivid description of Plotinus’ life as he knew it from his own time with the Neoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of Proclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in the sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of Isidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in Athens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, the significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts of these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. Taken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, they offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in late antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that Simplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries that are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and for our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"979","_score":null,"_source":{"id":979,"authors_free":[{"id":1478,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":254,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","free_first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","free_last_name":"Mejer","norm_person":{"id":254,"first_name":"J\u00f8rgen","last_name":"Mejer","full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1176526987","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1479,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1480,"entry_id":979,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition"},"abstract":"Most of the other philosophical Lives from late antiquity are written in the context \r\nof the Platonic philosophy: Apuleius wrote a book on Plato and his philosophy in the \r\nsecond century ce, and a hundred years later both Porphyry and Iamblichus wrote \r\nbiographies of Pythagoras, but they are all three more of value as a source to the times \r\nof their authors than as a source to the subject of their biographies. Porphyry\u2019s life \r\nof Pythagoras was part of his Historia Philosopha, on the history of philosophy in \r\nfour books up to and culminating in Plato. More important is the fact that we have \r\nbiographies of some Neoplatonic philosophers written by their students: Porphyry not \r\nonly collected and edited Plotinus\u2019 writings at the end of the third century ce, he also \r\nwrote a vivid description of Plotinus\u2019 life as he knew it from his own time with the \r\nNeoplatonic philosopher in Rome.3 Two hundred years later Marinus wrote a life of \r\nProclus who was head of the Academy in Athens in the fifth century ce, and early in \r\nthe sixth century Damascius wrote a Historia Philosopha (previously called Life of \r\nIsidorus), which covers the last couple of generations of Platonic philosophers in \r\nAthens. Since we have so many writings by the Neoplatonic philosophers themselves, \r\nthe significance of these biographies is not what they have to tell us about the thoughts \r\nof these Neoplatonists, but their description of the philosophical activities in Athens. \r\nTaken together with the numerous commentaries on works of Plato and Aristotle, \r\nthey offer important information about the institutional aspects of doing philosophy in \r\nlate antiquity, and much remains to be done in this area.4 It is no coincidence that \r\nSimplicius and many others in this period were capable of composing commentaries \r\nthat are still important both for our understanding of the texts they comment on and \r\nfor our knowledge of Greek philosophy. [Conclusion, p. 33]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xN3C25WHUYQeLn0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":254,"full_name":"Mejer, J\u00f8rgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":979,"section_of":167,"pages":"20-33","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Ancient Philosophy and the Doxographical Tradition"]}
Title | Apories orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 120-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Henry, Paul |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Les premières apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement à Plotin traitent du nombre des catégories, mais plus précisément sous l’aspect du rapport des catégories du monde intelligible à celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribuées à Plotin. D’un monde à l’autre, les catégories sont-elles les mêmes ou différentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les mêmes, les autres différentes ? Sont-elles en nombre égal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C’est le problème préliminaire qu’examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier traité VI 1, au début du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisième fois, au début du chapitre 5 de son troisième traité, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4. S’y réfèrent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l’une sous trois formes différentes – ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes – et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Ennéades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin à celui de ses prédécesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l’un de Dexippe, l’autre de Simplicius. Les relations entre tous ces textes étant fort compliquées, il est utile de les énumérer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l’ordre où je les étudie : 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate) 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin) 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin) 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin) F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate) F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l’ouvrage) (Plotin) 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin) 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4 F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme) Bien que, au début, ces distinctions paraissent compliquées, la suite montrera qu’elles aident à clarifier les questions. Je signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribué au « très divin Plotin » par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4. Nous finirons notre chapitre par un texte très court relatif au problème de l’opposé du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (τις) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (τις), et qui, faisant partie d’une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2. Le tout est un chassé-croisé de références, un enchevêtrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l’écrit, l’oral, les sources, à peu près inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire. Dans ce fouillis, je vais m’efforcer d’introduire un peu d’ordre et de clarté. Patiemment, car il s’agit bien d’un jeu de patience, je répartirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux séries, celle des reportata de l’enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F). Avec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilité, je compte récupérer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l’oral, deux fragments très probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines. Dès les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux problèmes qui nous intéressent et cela, on l’a dit, dans une complexité plus grande qu’ailleurs. Le problème fondamental des rapports de l’écrit et de l’oral. Les limites entre l’un et l’autre sont parfois indécises, incertaines. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’oral, quand oral il y a, éclaire considérablement l’écrit, sorte de commentaire ou de résumé anticipé. Le problème de l’indépendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur complémentarité. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fidèle à la formulation de l’aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire même le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avisé s’apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment dépendre de Dexippe ; il paraît ne jamais l’utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n’apparaît qu’une seule fois, et cela dans la Préface, p. 2,25, où Simplicius énumère les commentateurs des Catégories, alors qu’ailleurs il n’a pas honte de citer fidèlement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique. Enfin, le problème des sources de Plotin. Sources de l’oral ou de l’écrit ou de l’un et de l’autre. Ici même, par deux fois, un texte attribué par Simplicius à Plotin est attribué aussi, par lui, aux prédécesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n’est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare. Les deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides – ce ne sera pas toujours le cas – sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifiées, citées sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d’écrire « quelques-uns », là même où nous savons pertinemment qu’il s’agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu’une partie au moins des apories, tout en étant sûrement plotiniennes, n’ont aucun parallèle dans les Ennéades et proviennent donc de l’oral. [introduction p. 120-122] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"799","_score":null,"_source":{"id":799,"authors_free":[{"id":1179,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":175,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Henry, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Henry","norm_person":{"id":175,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Henry","full_name":"Henry, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1180,"entry_id":799,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les premi\u00e8res apories que Dexippe attribue explicitement \u00e0 Plotin traitent du nombre des cat\u00e9gories, mais plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment sous l\u2019aspect du rapport des cat\u00e9gories du monde intelligible \u00e0 celles du monde sensible. Chez Simplicius aussi ces apories sont explicitement attribu\u00e9es \u00e0 Plotin. D\u2019un monde \u00e0 l\u2019autre, les cat\u00e9gories sont-elles les m\u00eames ou diff\u00e9rentes, ou bien les unes sont-elles les m\u00eames, les autres diff\u00e9rentes ? Sont-elles en nombre \u00e9gal, plus nombreuses, moins nombreuses ? C\u2019est le probl\u00e8me pr\u00e9liminaire qu\u2019examine Plotin au chapitre 1 de son premier trait\u00e9 VI 1, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 2 sur la substance et, une troisi\u00e8me fois, au d\u00e9but du chapitre 5 de son troisi\u00e8me trait\u00e9, VI 3. Nos textes de base sont donc : VI 1,1,19-30 ; VI 1,2,1-8 ; VI 3,5,1-7, mais aussi VI 2,16,1-2 et VI 3,27,1-4.\r\n\r\nS\u2019y r\u00e9f\u00e8rent trois apories de Dexippe, mais l\u2019une sous trois formes diff\u00e9rentes \u2013 ce qui nous donne cinq petits textes \u2013 et deux longues pages de Simplicius, qui correspondent pour une part aux Enn\u00e9ades, pour une part aux textes de Dexippe, mais qui toutes deux associent le nom de Plotin \u00e0 celui de ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs. En outre, deux textes anonymes, l\u2019un de Dexippe, l\u2019autre de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLes relations entre tous ces textes \u00e9tant fort compliqu\u00e9es, il est utile de les \u00e9num\u00e9rer ici, avec les sigles que je leur attribue, et dans l\u2019ordre o\u00f9 je les \u00e9tudie :\r\n\r\n 01 = Simpl. p. 73,15-28 (Plotin, Lucius et Nicostrate)\r\n 01b* = Dex. II 1 sommaire et aporie (anonymes) = Simpl. p. 73,15-16 (Plotin)\r\n 02 = Simpl. p. 73,25-27 (Plotin)\r\n 01a* = Dex. II 4 sommaire et aporie (Plotin)\r\n F1 = Simpl. p. 76,13-22 (Plotin et Nicostrate)\r\n F1 = Dex. II 2 aporie (dans le corps de l\u2019ouvrage) (Plotin)\r\n 01c = Dex. II 2 sommaire (Plotin)\r\n 01e = Dex. II 2 solution (Plotin), cf. Simpl. 76,22-77,4\r\n F2 = Dex. 138 solution (anonyme) = Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (anonyme)\r\n\r\nBien que, au d\u00e9but, ces distinctions paraissent compliqu\u00e9es, la suite montrera qu\u2019elles aident \u00e0 clarifier les questions.\r\n\r\nJe signale tout de suite que le grand texte attribu\u00e9 au \u00ab tr\u00e8s divin Plotin \u00bb par Simpl. p. 73,15-28 contient aussi ce que contiennent Dex. II 1, Dex. II 2 somm., et de nombreuses correspondances avec Dex. II 4.\r\n\r\nNous finirons notre chapitre par un texte tr\u00e8s court relatif au probl\u00e8me de l\u2019oppos\u00e9 du mouvement, le repos, auquel font allusion Enn. VI 3,27,4-5, ainsi que Dex. I 38 sol., p. 34,17-19 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2) et Simpl. p. 66,30-31 (\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2), et qui, faisant partie d\u2019une source composite, justifiera le sigle F2.\r\n\r\nLe tout est un chass\u00e9-crois\u00e9 de r\u00e9f\u00e9rences, un enchev\u00eatrement de textes, de correspondances et de non-correspondances entre l\u2019\u00e9crit, l\u2019oral, les sources, \u00e0 peu pr\u00e8s inextricable, un des ensembles les plus complexes auxquels nous ayons jamais eu affaire.\r\n\r\nDans ce fouillis, je vais m\u2019efforcer d\u2019introduire un peu d\u2019ordre et de clart\u00e9. Patiemment, car il s\u2019agit bien d\u2019un jeu de patience, je r\u00e9partirai de mon mieux ces fragments, qui chevauchent les uns sur les autres, entre deux s\u00e9ries, celle des reportata de l\u2019enseignement oral (O) et celle des sources (F).\r\n\r\nAvec des coefficients variables de certitude ou de probabilit\u00e9, je compte r\u00e9cup\u00e9rer de la sorte deux fragments certains de l\u2019oral, deux fragments tr\u00e8s probables, un fragment simplement probable, enfin deux sources certaines.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s les premiers textes, nous affrontons les trois principaux probl\u00e8mes qui nous int\u00e9ressent et cela, on l\u2019a dit, dans une complexit\u00e9 plus grande qu\u2019ailleurs.\r\n\r\n Le probl\u00e8me fondamental des rapports de l\u2019\u00e9crit et de l\u2019oral. Les limites entre l\u2019un et l\u2019autre sont parfois ind\u00e9cises, incertaines. Ce qui est s\u00fbr, c\u2019est que l\u2019oral, quand oral il y a, \u00e9claire consid\u00e9rablement l\u2019\u00e9crit, sorte de commentaire ou de r\u00e9sum\u00e9 anticip\u00e9.\r\n Le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019ind\u00e9pendance mutuelle de Dexippe et de Simplicius et de leur compl\u00e9mentarit\u00e9. La question essentielle, souvent insoluble, est de savoir lequel des deux est le plus fid\u00e8le \u00e0 la formulation de l\u2019aporie orale ou de la source telle que les transmettait Porphyre, voire m\u00eame le seul Jamblique. Le lecteur avis\u00e9 s\u2019apercevra sans peine que Simplicius ne peut vraiment d\u00e9pendre de Dexippe ; il para\u00eet ne jamais l\u2019utiliser dans le corps de son ouvrage ; le nom n\u2019appara\u00eet qu\u2019une seule fois, et cela dans la Pr\u00e9face, p. 2,25, o\u00f9 Simplicius \u00e9num\u00e8re les commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories, alors qu\u2019ailleurs il n\u2019a pas honte de citer fid\u00e8lement ses sources, notamment Porphyre et Jamblique.\r\n Enfin, le probl\u00e8me des sources de Plotin. Sources de l\u2019oral ou de l\u2019\u00e9crit ou de l\u2019un et de l\u2019autre. Ici m\u00eame, par deux fois, un texte attribu\u00e9 par Simplicius \u00e0 Plotin est attribu\u00e9 aussi, par lui, aux pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs de Plotin. Chez Dexippe, ce n\u2019est pas le cas ici et ce sera toujours beaucoup plus rare.\r\n\r\nLes deux seuls points vraiment fermes et solides \u2013 ce ne sera pas toujours le cas \u2013 sont : primo, que les apories sont nettement authentifi\u00e9es, cit\u00e9es sous le nom de Plotin, tant par Dexippe que par Simplicius, lequel souvent, ailleurs, se contente d\u2019\u00e9crire \u00ab quelques-uns \u00bb, l\u00e0 m\u00eame o\u00f9 nous savons pertinemment qu\u2019il s\u2019agit de Plotin. Secundo, qu\u2019une partie au moins des apories, tout en \u00e9tant s\u00fbrement plotiniennes, n\u2019ont aucun parall\u00e8le dans les Enn\u00e9ades et proviennent donc de l\u2019oral. [introduction p. 120-122]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kSddLNtzgHnzFEv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":175,"full_name":"Henry, Paul","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":799,"section_of":189,"pages":"120-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Apories orales de Plotin sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Aquinas and the Platonists |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach |
Pages | 279-324 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hankey, Wayne J. |
Editor(s) | Gersh, Stephen , Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. |
Translator(s) |
As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas’ relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great. In fact, Thomas’ own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato’s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas’ relation to Platonism. Getting hold of Thomas’s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle’s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases. The principal problems with Henle’s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas’ representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition. Henle’s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in “a series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it” (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a “philosophical teaching” from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of “Platonism” and of Thomas’ Platonism. As a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae. This via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive—positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato’s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato’s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient. In the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato’s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas’ approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues. The substance of Thomas’ own thinking shows almost no development—except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato’s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato’s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation. [introduction p. 1-3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1348","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1348,"authors_free":[{"id":2003,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":167,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","free_first_name":"Wayne J.","free_last_name":"Hankey","norm_person":{"id":167,"first_name":" Wayne J.","last_name":"Hankey","full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054015821","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2361,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":450,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gersh, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Gersh","norm_person":{"id":450,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Gersh","full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172508460","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2362,"entry_id":1348,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":451,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","free_first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","free_last_name":"Hoenen","norm_person":{"id":451,"first_name":"Maarten J. F. M. ","last_name":"Hoenen","full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172140307","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aquinas and the Platonists","main_title":{"title":"Aquinas and the Platonists"},"abstract":"As with all thinkers who treat the philosophies on which they depend, Aquinas has two relations to his predecessors and, in particular, to the Platonic tradition. One is that of which he is conscious, sets out explicitly, is part of how he places himself within the history of philosophy, and is essential to his understanding of that place. The other is the unconscious dependence. In every thinker, these will diverge to some extent. First, no previous philosophy can answer later questions without being altered by the questioner: a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver. The alteration made by present need is especially marked in the schools deriving from the Hellenistic philosophies, with their dependence on the exegesis of authoritative texts constantly reread to supply answers required by the new needs of thought. Second, no one is capable of a complete grasp of what forms and moves their own thought. In the case of Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism, the divergences, inconsistencies, and even contradictions between what he says about Platonism, how he places himself in respect to it, and its real influence on his thought are very great.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Thomas\u2019 own system stands within a tradition whose foundation, as he represents it, he self-consciously opposes. Because his understanding of the Platonic tradition is deeply problematic in many ways, while his knowledge of it is extensive, and because the tradition is itself so complex, Aquinas is frequently (or, better, normally) criticizing one aspect of Platonism from the perspective of another. Such internal criticism is characteristic of Plato\u2019s thought and of its tradition. The ancient Platonists were, however, far better informed about the history of the tradition in which they stood than were their Latin medieval successors. The Platonists of late antiquity, upon whom Thomas depends for much of his understanding of the history of philosophy, did not have the degree of naivete present in the self-opposition that characterizes Thomas\u2019 relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nGetting hold of Thomas\u2019s self-conscious relation to Platonism has been largely accomplished, and many of the tools to complete the task are available. The lexicographical aspect of the work was substantially done almost fifty years ago by R.J. Henle. His Saint Thomas and Platonism: A Study of the Plato and Platonici Texts in the Writings of Saint Thomas is almost complete in terms of the texts it considers. Henle lavishly reproduces the relevant passages in Latin. For the most part, he gives the likely sources of the doctrines attributed to the Platonists with the accuracy possible when he wrote. His analysis, within the parameters he sets and which his perspective sets for him, is thorough and inescapable. Beyond Henle\u2019s work, it is necessary to add the few texts he missed, to correct his work on the basis of better editions than the ones he had available (or used), and to compensate for the limits of his undertaking and his biases.\r\n\r\nThe principal problems with Henle\u2019s work, once we accept its limits, lie in the vestiges of the neo-Scholastic mentality he retains. This mentality is opposed to that of the historian and was antipathetic to Platonic idealism. On this account, like Aquinas himself, he misses the extent to which Thomas\u2019 representation of Platonism and of his own relation to it actually stands within its long and diverse tradition.\r\n\r\nHenle\u2019s work accurately describes how, for Aquinas, a philosophical school is a fixed way of thinking, which results in \u201ca series of like statements formulated in the several minds that teach it and learn it, that write it and read it\u201d (as Mark Jordan puts it). Despite accepting this definition of a \u201cphilosophical teaching\u201d from Jordan, as well as his crucial point that Aquinas is not a philosopher whose position is an Aristotelianismus in an Enlightenment or neo-Scholastic manner, I shall continue to write herein both of \u201cPlatonism\u201d and of Thomas\u2019 Platonism.\r\n\r\nAs a matter of fact, for Aquinas, what the Platonici teach has been reduced to a fixed way of thinking, which he treats ahistorically, although he knows much of its history. Further, at several crucial points, he self-consciously sides with them. In rescuing Aquinas from neo-Scholastic representations of his philosophy, Jordan is importantly right that Aquinas did not think of Christians as philosophers. He neglects, however, the continuities that do exist between Scholastic and neo-Scholastic treatments of philosophy. Henle, working within these, through his analysis of the texts in which Thomas speaks of Plato and the Platonici, shows how Platonism is presented as one of these viae.\r\n\r\nThis via Thomas criticizes, and for most purposes finds the way of Aristotle superior, even if he may accept some of the positions at which the Platonists arrive\u2014positions that also may be reached otherwise. For Thomas, Platonism has a fundamental point of departure, established in Plato\u2019s attempt to save certain knowledge from the consequences of the doctrine of the ancient Physicists (Priores Naturales), with whom he accepts that philosophy began. For him, Plato\u2019s flawed solution to the epistemological problem determines Platonic ontology. The Platonic philosophical position as a whole proceeds according to a distinct method of reasoning to arrive at positions. It is a series of syllogisms whose basic premises are deficient.\r\n\r\nIn the thirteenth century, only the Meno, the Phaedo, and the Timaeus were available to the Latin West. Henle concluded that Aquinas had no direct knowledge of any of them. Thus, much as with Augustine, he knows only what he takes to be Plato\u2019s doctrines and is without knowledge of the dialogues themselves. Thomas\u2019 approach to philosophy gave him little sympathy for the kind of dialectic by which the fundamentals of philosophy are questioned and reconsidered within and between the dialogues.\r\n\r\nThe substance of Thomas\u2019 own thinking shows almost no development\u2014except, significantly, in his coming to accept that knowledge involves the formation of a Plotinian-Augustinian inner word in the mind, the verbum mentis. There is certainly no development remotely comparable to that within Plato\u2019s corpus. In consequence, his picture of Plato\u2019s way of thinking is not only lacking in the most basic information but is also without the intellectual necessities for a sympathetic representation.\r\n[introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LajmF4jRGYCVzFn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":167,"full_name":"Hankey, Wayne J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":450,"full_name":"Gersh, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":451,"full_name":"Hoenen, Maarten J. F. M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1348,"section_of":327,"pages":"279-324","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages: A Doxographic Approach","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gersh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Das Handbuch beschreitet neue Wege in der Schilderung der komplexen Geschichte jener geistigen Str\u00f6mungen, die gemeinhin unter der Bezeichnung 'platonisch' bzw. 'neuplatonisch' zusammengefa\u00dft werden. Es behandelt in chronologischer Folge die bedeutendsten philosophischen Denkrichtungen innerhalb dieser Tradition. Die Beitr\u00e4ge untersuchen die wichtigsten platonischen Begriffe und ihre semantischen Implikationen, erl\u00e4utern die mit ihnen verbundenen philosophischen und theologischen Anspr\u00fcche, legen die Quellen der Begriffe dar und stellen sie in den Kontext der auf sie rekurrierenden bzw. ihnen zuwiderlaufenden geistigen Traditionen. So entsteht ein lebhaftes Bild des intellektuellen Lebens im Mittelalter und in der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Das Werk enth\u00e4lt Beitr\u00e4ge in englischer und deutscher Sprache. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AyyoAnYvbV6wAyu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":327,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aquinas and the Platonists"]}
Title | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1965 |
Published in | Aristote, Du ciel. Texte établi et traduit par Paul Moraux |
Pages | VII-CXC |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EzAHeSeExATtJIm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1375","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1375,"authors_free":[{"id":2085,"entry_id":1375,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction","main_title":{"title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"},"abstract":"The introduction discusses the object and structure of Aristotle's treatise De caelo, which presents a challenge for commentators due to its lack of unity. While some ancient commentators saw the study of the world as a whole as the main object of the treatise, others focused on the study of the celestial body and its relation to the sublunar world. The modern understanding of the genesis of Aristotle's works suggests that the treatise may have been formed by combining previously independent monographs. Additionally, Aristotle himself may have attempted to give his works a coherent structure, but did so in a somewhat artificial way. Despite these challenges, the treatise is seen as an important work in the history of philosophy and science. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1965","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EzAHeSeExATtJIm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1375,"section_of":1374,"pages":"VII-CXC","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1374,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1965","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/W0FrLs9BKUEyoH3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1374,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristote, Du ciel. Texte \u00e9tabli et traduit par Paul Moraux. Introduction"]}
Title | Aristote: quantité et contrariété. Une critique de l’école d’Oxford |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 89-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | O'Brien, Denis |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Avant-propos L’école d’Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Catégories d’Aristote. Les divisions du texte — un point de repère. Objet de l’argument (5b11-15) Distinction entre propriétés et possesseurs de propriétés. Distinction entre l’aire et la surface, le volume et le corps. Distinction entre quantités déterminées et quantités indéterminées. Le premier argument (5b15-29) La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi. Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison. Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe. Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue. Le doublet (5b26-29). Le deuxième argument (5b30-33) Rubrique liminaire : une même chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d’une catégorie ? Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ? Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire. Relation et contrariété : la prémisse sous-jacente de l’argument. Le troisième argument (5b33-6a11) Introduction à l’argument (5b33-35). Première partie de l’argument : une chose admettra deux contraires à la fois (5b35-6a4). Seconde partie de l’argument : les choses contraires seront, à elles-mêmes, contraires (6a4-8). Conclusion de l’argument (6a8-11). Traduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Catégories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1099","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1099,"authors_free":[{"id":1661,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1662,"entry_id":1099,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford","main_title":{"title":"Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"},"abstract":"Avant-propos\r\nL\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford et le commentaire du Professeur J. L. Ackrill sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\nLes divisions du texte \u2014 un point de rep\u00e8re.\r\nObjet de l\u2019argument (5b11-15)\r\n\r\n Distinction entre propri\u00e9t\u00e9s et possesseurs de propri\u00e9t\u00e9s.\r\n Distinction entre l\u2019aire et la surface, le volume et le corps.\r\n Distinction entre quantit\u00e9s d\u00e9termin\u00e9es et quantit\u00e9s ind\u00e9termin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLe premier argument (5b15-29)\r\n\r\n La grandeur relative et la grandeur en soi.\r\n Les nombreux et les peu nombreux : motif de la double comparaison.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : les deux formes du paradoxe.\r\n Commentaire de Simplicius : la grandeur relative et la grandeur absolue.\r\n Le doublet (5b26-29).\r\n\r\nLe deuxi\u00e8me argument (5b30-33)\r\n\r\n Rubrique liminaire : une m\u00eame chose peut-elle se rencontrer dans plus d\u2019une cat\u00e9gorie ?\r\n Les relatifs peuvent-ils avoir des contraires ?\r\n Les deux groupes de relatifs : ceux qui peuvent avoir un contraire, ceux qui ne peuvent pas avoir de contraire.\r\n Relation et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : la pr\u00e9misse sous-jacente de l\u2019argument.\r\n\r\nLe troisi\u00e8me argument (5b33-6a11)\r\n\r\n Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019argument (5b33-35).\r\n Premi\u00e8re partie de l\u2019argument : une chose admettra deux contraires \u00e0 la fois (5b35-6a4).\r\n Seconde partie de l\u2019argument : les choses contraires seront, \u00e0 elles-m\u00eames, contraires (6a4-8).\r\n Conclusion de l\u2019argument (6a8-11).\r\n\r\nTraduction-Paraphrase du chapitre six des Cat\u00e9gories (4b20-6a35) [structure by the author]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fSSFgeHBQMgQH3p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1099,"section_of":302,"pages":"89-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristote: quantit\u00e9 et contrari\u00e9t\u00e9. Une critique de l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Oxford"]}
Title | Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 191-223 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Boureau, Mai-Lan |
Editor(s) | Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1574","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1574,"authors_free":[{"id":2744,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2745,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2746,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2747,"entry_id":1574,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":572,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","free_first_name":"Mai-Lan","free_last_name":"Boureau","norm_person":{"id":572,"first_name":"Mai-Lan","last_name":"Boureau","full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'","main_title":{"title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NqVyPiLS6En2pMe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":572,"full_name":"Boureau, Mai-Lan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1574,"section_of":1573,"pages":"191-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristoteles-Kommentare als Editionsquellen: Der Fall des Simplikios-Kommentars zur aristotelischen Schrift 'De caelo'"]}
Title | Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
Pages | 201-219 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | David J. Furley |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1585","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1585,"authors_free":[{"id":2781,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"David J. Furley","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":null},{"id":2782,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":null},{"id":2783,"entry_id":1585,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1585,"section_of":334,"pages":"201-219","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian Material in Cicero's De natura deorum"]}
Title | Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 129-146 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato’s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius’ responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"812","_score":null,"_source":{"id":812,"authors_free":[{"id":1202,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1203,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1204,"entry_id":812,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Cristoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory"},"abstract":"Aristotle and Plato advanced very different theories of the traditional four elements. Whereas Plato in his Timaeus proposes a geometrical theory of these elements, Aristotle in his On the Heavens (and On Generation and Corruption) offers a qualitative analysis and offers a series of objections to Plato\u2019s theory. These objections provided later Platonists with the opportunity to defend Plato against and possibly harmonize him with Aristotle. This paper explores Simplicius\u2019 responses to Aristotle one by one, paying particular attention to the brand of scientific discourse that he engages in with Proclus, and to how different commitments to harmonization affect their responses to these objections. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nEraa8dkGyuG6Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":812,"section_of":299,"pages":"129-146","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian objections and post-Aristotelian responses to Plato's elemental theory"]}
Title | Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
Pages | 1079-1174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang , Temporini, Hildegard |
Translator(s) |
It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle’s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle’s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric’ writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin. We may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school’s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers. This dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric’ and the 'esoteric,’ to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius’ source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric’ (or 'acroamatic’) and 'exoteric’ writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric’ works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school. The same continuity is found in the school’s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus’ edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle’s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle’s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics. There is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle’s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age. All this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle’s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents. The specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle’s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle’s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas. New developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle’s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle’s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle’s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints. At this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy. There is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked—a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann’s sense of the word, of Aristotle’s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle’s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher’s philosopher. [conclusion p. 1172-1174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FPwm868kRTy5Ier |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1332","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1332,"authors_free":[{"id":1965,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2382,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2383,"entry_id":1332,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":453,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","free_first_name":"Hildegard","free_last_name":"Temporini","norm_person":{"id":453,"first_name":"Hildegard","last_name":"Temporini","full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117754013","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"},"abstract":"It is time to place our findings in a wider perspective. The propagation of Aristotelianism in the first two centuries AD seems to have taken place at several levels. For the committed student, there was the study and exposition of Aristotle\u2019s school treatises. Much sound and lasting work was done in this field, but it seems to have been confined to a fairly restricted circle, although some contributions were made by members of other schools or by those, like Galen, who did not tie themselves to any school at all, as well as by professed Aristotelians. For a wider audience, there were compilations and handbooks purveying Aristotle\u2019s doctrines in a more accessible form and the 'exoteric\u2019 writings of Aristotle and his pupils, which continued to circulate in this period; the impression sometimes given that they were driven out of circulation as soon as Andronicus made the school treatises available is seriously misleading. Lastly, there was an immense production of sub-philosophical tracts, like the pseudo-Pythagorean writings, which might include some Aristotelian ideas but always diluted and heavily contaminated with others of a different origin.\r\n\r\nWe may ignore the third of these, which contributed little or nothing to the development of Aristotelianism as such. Historians naturally concentrate on the first, which so profoundly influenced the subsequent tradition, but it would be a mistake to neglect the second entirely. The eminent men of affairs who professed themselves followers of Aristotle will not have been motivated by a passionate belief in the priority of the categorical over the hypothetical syllogism or the eternity of the physical universe. What Aristotelianism had to offer them was a view of the world and a reasoned set of ethical beliefs that avoided the mechanism and hedonism of the Epicureans, the determinism and rigorism of the Stoics, and the other-worldliness of Platonism; and this is more or less what we find in the popular writings influenced by Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, whether composed by members of the school or by outsiders like Plutarch. However we rate the philosophical value of this side of the school\u2019s activity, it undoubtedly helped to establish its position in society and the claim of its members to publicly funded teaching posts and the other privileges accorded to philosophers.\r\n\r\nThis dualism entered into the popular image of the school and was believed to go back to its very beginnings. Lucian, in a well-known passage, describes the Peripatetic as the thinker with two philosophies, the 'exoteric\u2019 and the 'esoteric,\u2019 to offer, and according to Aulus Gellius, Aristotle used to give rigorous courses for specialists in the morning and more popular ones in the afternoon. The diffusion of this view in the literature of the second century AD suggests that it accurately reflected the conditions of the time, but this does not mean that we need doubt its historical truth. Gellius\u2019 source was probably Andronicus, who is quoted later in the same chapter; the distinction between 'esoteric\u2019 (or 'acroamatic\u2019) and 'exoteric\u2019 writings is already found in Cicero, who probably had it from Antiochus of Ascalon, and Aristotle himself refers to the 'exoteric\u2019 works in the extant treatises. The history of the Hellenistic Peripatos is, to a large extent, one of the tension between these tendencies in the work of the school.\r\n\r\nThe same continuity is found in the school\u2019s teaching, especially at the popular level. The dialogues and handbooks read in the Hellenistic age continued in use, and the opinions about the school and its beliefs current among outsiders in the first two centuries AD hardly differed from those of the Ciceronian age. At the more specialized level, Andronicus\u2019 edition made a new start in the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings, but his way of presenting Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was a legitimate extension of the work of Theophrastus and Eudemus. Even the freedom with which he and his immediate followers suggested the need for changes in details imitated the practice of the first generation of Peripatetics.\r\n\r\nThere is one difference, however. The early Peripatetics not only expounded Aristotle\u2019s philosophy but tried to extend its scope by independent study of the natural world and human behavior. The absence of this element from the work of Andronicus and those who came after him resulted in the growth of the book-centered scholasticism we meet in the Imperial age.\r\n\r\nAll this is not to say that the popular and scholarly traditions were isolated from one another. The popular books and lectures of professed Peripatetics were meant to give a true outline of the philosophy developed fully in the school treatises, and even some of the pseudo-Pythagorean books contain material clearly derived from the extant pragmateiai, at however many removes; a few of them, notably the pseudo-Archytean reworkings of the Categories, reflect a stage in their understanding that can be clearly defined and connected with the names of known commentators. On the other hand, some of the commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s pragmateiai seem to have originated in elementary lecture courses, and this may account for the superficiality of some of their contents.\r\n\r\nThe specialized work of the school was based on the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s writings. In this field, its members developed a high degree of competence, and its influence is not exhausted even today, but the thrust of their interpretation was very different from that of the modern historian of philosophy. Their aim was to present Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a system and to elucidate his doctrines; they were less interested in the character of his arguments and not at all in the origin and growth of his ideas.\r\n\r\nNew developments of his teaching took one of two directions. On the one hand, real or apparent discrepancies in Aristotle\u2019s writings had to be explained. This was part of exegesis and subordinated to the systematic tendency of the school (we find no genetic explanations); some of the difficulties raised were of a kind that would only be felt by elementary students, and clearly much attention was paid to their needs. But there are real loose ends in Aristotle\u2019s work, which his followers tried to tie up as best they could. Secondly, new problems had arisen in the course of philosophical debate in the period since Aristotle\u2019s death, which Aristotle had not discussed or only in a marginal way; the question of Fate and Providence is the most notable instance. Here there was a constant tension between the implications of the problem and the requirements of orthodoxy, and progress was limited. On the whole, orthodoxy prevailed, backed up by polemics against rival viewpoints.\r\n\r\nAt this point, we can observe a rigidity that inhibited the further development of Aristotelianism and may explain its failure to resist the encroachment of Platonism. We have already seen that many Aristotelian ideas, including the whole of his logic and a good part of his metaphysics, natural philosophy, and ethics, were taken over by Platonists from the first century onwards. In spite of some opposition, from Plotinus as well as lesser figures, this process continued until all Aristotelian doctrines that could be brought into conformity with Platonic principles were incorporated into the developed Neoplatonic systems. As this happened, Aristotelianism ceased to exist as an independent philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is a Protean quality about Platonism that has allowed it at various times to absorb alien ideas without losing its essential character, perhaps precisely because its fundamental insights were not tied to a fixed system. Aristotelianism, in the systematic form it had acquired, lacked this flexibility. It was well suited to the enlightened atmosphere of the first two centuries AD but could no longer meet the needs, especially the religious aspirations, of the centuries that followed. But it could offer the Platonists something they lacked\u2014a ready-made set of components for building their own system. Many of the parts proved more durable than the whole; they constituted the Erkenntnisse, in N. Hartmann\u2019s sense of the word, of Aristotle\u2019s thinking. Within the new framework, Aristotle\u2019s leading ideas retained their vigor, and Aristotle became what, by and large, he has remained ever since: the philosopher\u2019s philosopher.\r\n[conclusion p. 1172-1174]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FPwm868kRTy5Ier","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":453,"full_name":"Temporini, Hildegard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1332,"section_of":335,"pages":"1079-1174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD"]}
Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 1-19 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"]}
Title | Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Pages | 179-182 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs Nikolaou |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"63","_score":null,"_source":{"id":63,"authors_free":[{"id":71,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2505,"entry_id":63,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s Nikolaou","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"},"abstract":"Aristotle was the first not only to distinguish between potential and actual infinity but also to insist that potential infinity alone is enough for mathematics thus initiating an issue still central to the philosophy of mathematics. Modern scholarship, however, has attacked Aristotle's thesis because, according to the received doctrine, it does not square with Euclidean geometry and it also seems to contravene Aristotle's belief in the finitude of the physical universe. This monograph, the first thorough study of the issue, puts Aristotle's views on infinity in the proper perspective. Through a close study of the relevant Aristotelian passages it shows that the Stagirite's theory of infinity forms a well argued philosophical position which does not bear on his belief in a finite cosmos and does not undermine the Euclidean nature of geometry. The monograph draws a much more positive picture of Aristotle's views and reaffirms his disputed stature as a serious philosopher of mathematics. This innovative and stimulating contribution will be essential reading to a wide range of scholars, including classicists, philosophers of science and mathematics as well as historians of ideas. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XpR1jO7FPHTJmR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":63,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy","series":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Ath\u00e8nes, Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":63,"section_of":1459,"pages":"179-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and Simplicius on Mathematical Infinity"]}
Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 29-47 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"]}
Title | Aristotle’s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 1-7 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kerferd, George B. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14–24 — 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows: "Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gnôseôs ê phronêseôs) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (tôn ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes." Aristotle’s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold: Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions. Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed. Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes. But there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated "the earliest natural philosophers." The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena. A resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi prôtoi physiologêsantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle’s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrachê dieile tas peri geneseôs doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be: No generation at all. All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently. Most things are generated but not the primary substances. All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities. Whatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)—no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether. On the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here: "The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d." [introduction p. 1-3] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"889","_score":null,"_source":{"id":889,"authors_free":[{"id":1309,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":215,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kerferd, George B.","free_first_name":"George B.","free_last_name":"Kerferd","norm_person":{"id":215,"first_name":" George B.","last_name":"Kerferd","full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158138547","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1310,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1311,"entry_id":889,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"},"abstract":"In his De caelo (3.1, 298b 14\u201324 \u2014 28 A 25 DK), Aristotle makes a strange and puzzling statement about Parmenides and the Eleatics. But before we discuss this in detail, it will be best first to give a translation of the context as a whole, with the relevant statement italicized, and to consider the way in which he is there classifying earlier thinkers. The passage reads as follows:\r\n\r\n\"Perhaps the first question for consideration is whether generation is a fact or not. Earlier searchers after wisdom concerning reality differed both from the accounts which we are now offering and from one another. Some of them abolished generation and destruction completely. Nothing that is, they declare, is either generated or destroyed; it merely seems to us that it is so. Such were Melissus and Parmenides and their followers, and these men, although in other respects their doctrines are excellent, are not to be regarded as speaking from the point of view of natural science. For the existence of certain entities that are neither generated nor subject to any kind of change is a matter not for natural science but for a different and higher study. These men, however, since they supposed there was nothing else at all apart from the existence of things perceived and on the other hand were the first to contemplate some such (unchanging) entities as a prerequisite for any knowledge or understanding (gn\u00f4se\u00f4s \u00ea phron\u00ease\u00f4s) as a result transferred to sensible objects those accounts which come from the other (higher) source (t\u00f4n ekei then logous). Others again, as if from set purpose, came to hold the opposite opinion to that held by these men. For there are some who say that nothing in the world is ungenerated, but all things are subject to generation, and that when generated some things remain indestructible and others are again destroyed. This view was held above all by Hesiod and his followers, and thereafter by the first natural philosophers. These say that all other things are in process of being generated and flow, and nothing is stable. But there is one thing only which persists, from which all these other things are produced by natural transformations. This seems to be the meaning intended by Heraclitus of Ephesus and many others. But there are some who suppose that all body also is generated, combining it out of plane surfaces and separating it again into such planes.\"\r\n\r\nAristotle\u2019s classification here would seem at first sight to be threefold:\r\n\r\n Those who deny all generation and destruction as mere illusions.\r\n Those who say nothing is ungenerated but everything comes to be, although once generated, some things are exempt from destruction while others are again destroyed.\r\n Those who would generate all solids from geometrical shapes or planes.\r\n\r\nBut there is an obscurity about the second group, said to be led by Hesiod and his followers, with whom are to be associated \"the earliest natural philosophers.\" The reference to Hesiod must surely be to his doctrine of Chaos, which was the first to come into existence (Theogony 116) and from which, in due course, all other things arose. Grouped with him are the earliest natural philosophers (hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes), which suggests to us at first reading the Ionians. But in this case, Aristotle would be saying, for example, that the water of Thales itself came into existence before other things were generated from it. This seems in conflict both with the usual view of the Ionians in antiquity and also with what seems to be their characterization in the following two sentences, which describe a doctrine according to which there is a single substance persisting through the various transmutations that produce phenomena.\r\n\r\nA resolution of this problem is propounded by Simplicius in his commentary on the passage. He takes the words hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes to refer to those whom Aristotle elsewhere calls hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes (Metaphysics 983b28), namely Orpheus and Musaeus. This opens the way to the view that the Ionians are first referred to in the sentence following next after hoi pr\u00f4toi physiolog\u00easantes, which begins with the words hoi de. The result is to divide Aristotle\u2019s second class into two, producing a total of four, not three, classifications. This was indeed what Simplicius intended, as can be seen in his statement tetrach\u00ea dieile tas peri genese\u00f4s doxas (In De caelo, 556.3). These will then be:\r\n\r\n No generation at all.\r\n All things are generated, and some of these things then persist permanently.\r\n Most things are generated but not the primary substances.\r\n All bodily things are generated from ungenerated geometrical entities.\r\n\r\nWhatever may be the correct analysis of what Aristotle is saying here, there can be no doubt that he places the Eleatics in category (1)\u2014no generation at all. But a major difficulty arises from his statement that for the Eleatics there is nothing else apart from things perceived and that they applied to things perceived the concepts appropriate to unchanging entities, which belong to a different field altogether.\r\n\r\nOn the whole, this statement seems to have provoked irritation rather than interest or respect, and it is commonly dismissed as mistaken. Harold Chemiss, writing in 1935, says that here:\r\n\r\n\"The Eleatic doctrine is rejected as unphysical. But the origin is differently explained. The Eleatics were the first to see that knowledge requires the existence of immutable substances; but, thinking that sensible objects alone existed, they applied to them the arguments concerning objects of thought. Aristotle derives this account by a literal interpretation of Plato, Parmenides 135b-c. But cf. Sophist 249b-d.\" [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8A6Irhi7CRu4EpE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":215,"full_name":"Kerferd, George B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":889,"section_of":354,"pages":"1-7","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle\u2019s Treatment of the Doctrine of Parmenides"]}
Title | Au terme d’une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Phédon |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Ancient Readings of Plato’s Phaedo |
Pages | 293-310 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | Delcomminette, Sylvain , Hoine, Pieter d’ , Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Translator(s) |
Une qualité indéniable des Commentaires de Simplicius réside dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Présocratiques, des Platoniciens et des Péripatéticiens, mais surtout d’Aristote et de Platon. C’est notamment à travers cet usage des références que l’on peut mesurer l’originalité (ou la particularité) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses thèses s’élaborent au fil d’une exégèse qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synthèse de la culture païenne. Dès lors, c’est dans une certaine pratique de l’intertextualité que se joue sa contribution à l’histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interprétation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition. Or, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n’a pas écrit de commentaire sur le Phédon. En tant que membre de l’École d’Athènes, il a certes dû lire et interpréter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-être même assisté à l’une (au moins) des deux séries de cours dispensées par son maître. À tout le moins, il devait en connaître l’existence et avoir pris position par rapport à une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interprétation du Phédon, il faut emprunter un chemin détourné, en examinant les citations et allusions liées à ce dialogue à travers ses différents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Phédon et à quelle fin ? Dans cette étude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d’abord, j’aimerais examiner l’apport personnel de Simplicius à l’interprétation du Phédon, par rapport à la tradition dans laquelle il s’inscrit. Ensuite, plus particulièrement, je voudrais évaluer la distance de Simplicius à l’égard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l’École platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j’espère contribuer à la compréhension de la méthode et de l’originalité de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1412","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1412,"authors_free":[{"id":2206,"entry_id":1412,"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":"Gavray","free_last_name":"Marc-Antoine","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}},{"id":2210,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":391,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","free_first_name":"Sylvain","free_last_name":"Delcomminette","norm_person":{"id":391,"first_name":"Sylvain","last_name":"Delcomminette","full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142220701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2211,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d\u2019","free_first_name":"Pieter","free_last_name":"Hoine, d\u2019","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2212,"entry_id":1412,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don","main_title":{"title":"Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"},"abstract":"Une qualit\u00e9 ind\u00e9niable des Commentaires de Simplicius r\u00e9side dans leur utilisation abondante de la tradition philosophique. Ils comportent de nombreuses citations des Pr\u00e9socratiques, des Platoniciens et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, mais surtout d\u2019Aristote et de Platon. C\u2019est notamment \u00e0 travers cet usage des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences que l\u2019on peut mesurer l\u2019originalit\u00e9 (ou la particularit\u00e9) philosophique de Simplicius. Ses th\u00e8ses s\u2019\u00e9laborent au fil d\u2019une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui croise les textes et tisse patiemment la synth\u00e8se de la culture pa\u00efenne. D\u00e8s lors, c\u2019est dans une certaine pratique de l\u2019intertextualit\u00e9 que se joue sa contribution \u00e0 l\u2019histoire de la philosophie et que se dessine parfois une interpr\u00e9tation novatrice de certains classiques de la tradition.\r\n\r\nOr, pour autant que nous le sachions, Simplicius n\u2019a pas \u00e9crit de commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don. En tant que membre de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il a certes d\u00fb lire et interpr\u00e9ter ce dialogue, qui faisait partie du canon de lecture. Disciple de Damascius, il a peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame assist\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019une (au moins) des deux s\u00e9ries de cours dispens\u00e9es par son ma\u00eetre. \u00c0 tout le moins, il devait en conna\u00eetre l\u2019existence et avoir pris position par rapport \u00e0 une telle lecture. Aussi, pour retrouver son interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, il faut emprunter un chemin d\u00e9tourn\u00e9, en examinant les citations et allusions li\u00e9es \u00e0 ce dialogue \u00e0 travers ses diff\u00e9rents Commentaires. Comment surgissent ces renvois au Ph\u00e9don et \u00e0 quelle fin ?\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude, je souhaite poursuivre trois objectifs, tous relativement modestes. Tout d\u2019abord, j\u2019aimerais examiner l\u2019apport personnel de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du Ph\u00e9don, par rapport \u00e0 la tradition dans laquelle il s\u2019inscrit. Ensuite, plus particuli\u00e8rement, je voudrais \u00e9valuer la distance de Simplicius \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des Commentaires de Damascius, afin de mesurer leur impact au sein de l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne en exil. Enfin, et plus largement, j\u2019esp\u00e8re contribuer \u00e0 la compr\u00e9hension de la m\u00e9thode et de l\u2019originalit\u00e9 de Simplicius, en tant que philosophe et commentateur. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QqG0Y1xgt1bzrvI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":391,"full_name":"Delcomminette, Sylvain","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1412,"section_of":1411,"pages":"293-310","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1411,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Readings of Plato\u2019s Phaedo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Delcomminette_d'Hoine_Gavray2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Plato\u2019s Phaedo has never failed to attract the attention of philosophers and scholars. Yet the history of its reception in Antiquity has been little studied. The present volume therefore proposes to examine not only the Platonic exegetical tradition surrounding this dialogue, which culminates in the commentaries of Damascius and Olympiodorus, but also its place in the reflections of the rival Peripatetic, Stoic, and Sceptical schools.\r\nThis volume thus aims to shed light on the surviving commentaries and their sources, as well as on less familiar aspects of the history of the Phaedo\u2019s ancient reception. By doing so, it may help to clarify what ancient interpreters of Plato can and cannot offer their contemporary counterparts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V5pyD4OzXUkorzM","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1411,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"140","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Au terme d\u2019une tradition: Simplicius, lecteur du Ph\u00e9don"]}
Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
Pages | 89-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
Translator(s) |
Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"]}
Title | Bibliothèques et formes du livre a la fin de l’antiquité. Le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2 |
Pages | 601-632 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Prato, Giancarlo |
Translator(s) |
Quels sont donc les maigres résultats de notre enquête ? On déduit d’un cursus d’études tardo-antique des Ve et VIe siècles la nécessaire existence de riches bibliothèques dont l’histoire ultérieure n’est qu’un tissu d’hypothèses ou de questions nécessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu’à la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe siècle. Les livres utilisés, conservés ou réalisés dans ces milieux néoplatoniciens devaient probablement – pour les œuvres les plus prolixes du moins – être de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, évoqués par Monsieur Crisci pour une période il est vrai postérieure de plusieurs décennies. On a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le célèbre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), écrit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, décrit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stupéfiantes. Il est daté en général du VIe ou du VIIe siècle, et Turner, après Edgar Lobel, le situe plutôt vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C’est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette époque, d’un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera – me suggère Jean Irigoin – l’exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Cratévas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d’une chaîne, un autre exemple postérieur étant le Venetus A de l’Iliade, Marc. gr. 454). La mise en pages attestée dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu après 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d’Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l’Isagogè de Porphyre et le début des Catégories, une compilation de la littérature exégétique alexandrine et athénienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie çà et là de nouveautés postérieures au VIe siècle. Le module de l’écriture adopté par Aréthas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l’Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, également illustrée (et de manière extrême) dans un autre contexte et à une tout autre époque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d’Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-être sur la voie du type d’écriture utilisé pour la copie des œuvres immenses d’un Proclus, d’un Damascius ou d’un Simplicius. On peut imaginer que les livres de l’école néoplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format déjà évoqués, et dont l’usage est attesté pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S’ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l’école (c’est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur Hésiode et sur Orphée). S’ils contenaient une œuvre exégétique « moderne » (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d’écritures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant à des centaines de pages dans les éditions modernes ? Mais ce n’est là, bien sûr, qu’une suggestion, ou plutôt une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csXi7Zihz5LcEep |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"711","_score":null,"_source":{"id":711,"authors_free":[{"id":1060,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1061,"entry_id":711,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":195,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","free_first_name":"Giancarlo","free_last_name":"Prato","norm_person":{"id":195,"first_name":"Giancarlo","last_name":"Prato","full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143872176","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"Quels sont donc les maigres r\u00e9sultats de notre enqu\u00eate ? On d\u00e9duit d\u2019un cursus d\u2019\u00e9tudes tardo-antique des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles la n\u00e9cessaire existence de riches biblioth\u00e8ques dont l\u2019histoire ult\u00e9rieure n\u2019est qu\u2019un tissu d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses ou de questions n\u00e9cessaires, et le chemin est long jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la copie des volumes platoniciens de la Collection philosophique au IXe si\u00e8cle. Les livres utilis\u00e9s, conserv\u00e9s ou r\u00e9alis\u00e9s dans ces milieux n\u00e9oplatoniciens devaient probablement \u2013 pour les \u0153uvres les plus prolixes du moins \u2013 \u00eatre de ces codices de grand format, et aux vastes marges, \u00e9voqu\u00e9s par Monsieur Crisci pour une p\u00e9riode il est vrai post\u00e9rieure de plusieurs d\u00e9cennies.\r\n\r\nOn a pu mettre en relation le chapitre 27 de la Vie de Proclus avec le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre codex de papyrus de Callimaque (P.Oxy. XX 2258), \u00e9crit en majuscule alexandrine. Ce codex, d\u00e9crit en 1959 par Jean Irigoin et en 1971 par sir Eric Turner, est de dimensions stup\u00e9fiantes. Il est dat\u00e9 en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du VIe ou du VIIe si\u00e8cle, et Turner, apr\u00e8s Edgar Lobel, le situe plut\u00f4t vers 500 ou 600 que vers 700. C\u2019est le meilleur exemple connu, pour cette \u00e9poque, d\u2019un type de mise en pages comportant un texte et son commentaire. (On lui ajoutera \u2013 me sugg\u00e8re Jean Irigoin \u2013 l\u2019exemple des citations marginales de Galien et de Crat\u00e9vas lisibles dans le Dioscoride de Vienne, et qui nous instruisent sur le processus de formation d\u2019une cha\u00eene, un autre exemple post\u00e9rieur \u00e9tant le Venetus A de l\u2019Iliade, Marc. gr. 454).\r\n\r\nLa mise en pages attest\u00e9e dans le Callimaque se retrouvera, peu apr\u00e8s 900, dans le Vat. Urb. gr. 35 (Organon d\u2019Aristote), dont les marges comportent, pour l\u2019Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre et le d\u00e9but des Cat\u00e9gories, une compilation de la litt\u00e9rature ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique alexandrine et ath\u00e9nienne (on y trouve du Simplicius), enrichie \u00e7\u00e0 et l\u00e0 de nouveaut\u00e9s post\u00e9rieures au VIe si\u00e8cle. Le module de l\u2019\u00e9criture adopt\u00e9 par Ar\u00e9thas pour transcrire les commentaires dans les marges de l\u2019Urb. gr. 35 permet de saisir une pratique de la micrographie, \u00e9galement illustr\u00e9e (et de mani\u00e8re extr\u00eame) dans un autre contexte et \u00e0 une tout autre \u00e9poque, par le codex Mani de Cologne. Plus que le module des commentaires marginaux du Callimaque, les modules infimes du manuscrit d\u2019Aristote comme du codex Mani nous mettent peut-\u00eatre sur la voie du type d\u2019\u00e9criture utilis\u00e9 pour la copie des \u0153uvres immenses d\u2019un Proclus, d\u2019un Damascius ou d\u2019un Simplicius.\r\n\r\nOn peut imaginer que les livres de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne prenaient volontiers la forme des codices de grand format d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00e9voqu\u00e9s, et dont l\u2019usage est attest\u00e9 pour des textes profanes ou classiques. S\u2019ils contenaient un texte des auctoritates, de vastes marges pouvaient accueillir des commentaires de l\u2019\u00e9cole (c\u2019est le cas des commentaires de Proclus sur H\u00e9siode et sur Orph\u00e9e). S\u2019ils contenaient une \u0153uvre ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique \u00ab moderne \u00bb (de Proclus ou de Simplicius), la pratique d\u2019\u00e9critures de petit module ne pouvait-elle permettre de maintenir dans des limites spatiales maniables des textes correspondant \u00e0 des centaines de pages dans les \u00e9ditions modernes ? Mais ce n\u2019est l\u00e0, bien s\u00fbr, qu\u2019une suggestion, ou plut\u00f4t une ultime question. [conclusion p. 630-632]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csXi7Zihz5LcEep","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":195,"full_name":"Prato, Giancarlo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":711,"section_of":158,"pages":"601-632","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":158,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998), Tomo 2","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Prato2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kvRD4rywoYZSgSs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":158,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"Gonnelli","series":"Papyrologica Florentina","volume":"31","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Biblioth\u00e8ques et formes du livre a la fin de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9. Le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"]}
Title | Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 103-124 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle’s text. Boethus’ fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition—Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius—a coherent and unitary doctrine. His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories. For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance. [introduction p. 103-104] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1536,"authors_free":[{"id":2679,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2680,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology","main_title":{"title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"},"abstract":"Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle\u2019s text. Boethus\u2019 fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition\u2014Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius\u2014a coherent and unitary doctrine.\r\n\r\nHis doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos\u2019 nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.\r\n\r\nFor sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.\r\n[introduction p. 103-104]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYH889DSksf6EXe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1536,"section_of":1419,"pages":"103-124","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"]}
Title | Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Latin |
Date | 1804 |
Published in | Bibliotheca Graeca. Sive notitia scriptorum ueterum Graecorum, Vol. 9. Editio nova, curante Gottlieb Christophero Harles. |
Pages | 529-568 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fabricius, Johann Albert |
Editor(s) | Fabricius, Johann Albert , Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/svsBTP48ixwjLF5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"72","_score":null,"_source":{"id":72,"authors_free":[{"id":80,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":392,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","free_first_name":"Johann Albert","free_last_name":"Fabricius","norm_person":{"id":392,"first_name":"Johann Albert ","last_name":"Fabricius","full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2446,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":392,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert","free_first_name":"Johann Albert","free_last_name":"Fabricius","norm_person":{"id":392,"first_name":"Johann Albert ","last_name":"Fabricius","full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2447,"entry_id":72,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":482,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","free_first_name":"Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","free_last_name":"Harless","norm_person":{"id":482,"first_name":"Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","last_name":"Harless","full_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116476508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti","main_title":{"title":"Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1804","language":"Latin","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/svsBTP48ixwjLF5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":392,"full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":392,"full_name":"Fabricius, Johann Albert ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":482,"full_name":"Harless, Adolf Gottlieb Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":72,"pubplace":"Hamburgi","publisher":"Apud Carolum Ernestum Bohn","series":"Bibliotheca Graeca","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":72,"section_of":1451,"pages":"529-568","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1451,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"la","title":"Bibliotheca Graeca. Sive notitia scriptorum ueterum Graecorum, Vol. 9. Editio nova, curante Gottlieb Christophero Harles.","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fabricius 1704","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1804","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lgGhcosZH4ekgKK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1451,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Carolum Ernestum Bohn","series":"Bibliotheca Graeca","volume":"9","edition_no":"nova","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Caput XXIV. (olim XXIX.) De Simplicio, interprete Aristotelis et Epicteti"]}
Title | Catégories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du “skopos” du traité aristotélicien des “Catégories” |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 61-90 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"709","_score":null,"_source":{"id":709,"authors_free":[{"id":1057,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1058,"entry_id":709,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"},"abstract":"Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories is the first among three commentaries left by the renowned Neoplatonic philosopher. This commentary holds a significant place in the study of Aristotle's works, as it marks the beginning of the reading of Aristotle's oeuvre from a spiritual perspective. The prayer at the end of Simplicius' commentary highlights the transformative power of studying Aristotle's Categories, allowing the soul to ascend to higher knowledge and seek ultimate happiness. Simplicius' other commentaries, such as his work on Epictetus and De Caelo, similarly express the journey of spiritual conversion and progressive ascension to higher realities within the Neoplatonic spiritual framework. The Neoplatonic curriculum involved an ethical initiation, leading to the study of Aristotle's works and culminating in the study of Plato's Timaeus and Parmenides. Overall, Simplicius' exegesis of Aristotle's Categories reveals the profound spiritual significance and transformative potential of philosophical studies within the Neoplatonic tradition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z4JuOtqVWGpQ7Ef","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":709,"section_of":171,"pages":"61-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Cat\u00e9gories et langage selon Simplicius - La question du \u201cskopos\u201d du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des \u201cCat\u00e9gories\u201d"]}
Title | Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 157-179 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude. Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste. La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs. L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories. À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes. De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26). Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos. Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32). Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories. Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste. Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques. [conclusion p. 176-177] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"Nous r\u00e9sumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette \u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nAlexandre souscrit \u00e0 la th\u00e8se selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premi\u00e8res par rapport aux genres et aux esp\u00e8ces, mais cela n\u2019implique \u00e0 ses yeux aucune cons\u00e9quence particulariste ou nominaliste.\r\n\r\nLa d\u00e9finition des substances premi\u00e8res qu\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sente dans les Cat\u00e9gories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s\u2019appliquer \u00e0 la forme s\u00e9par\u00e9e, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.\r\n\r\nL\u2019existence de formes dans la mati\u00e8re ne contredit pas le crit\u00e8re de substantialit\u00e9 \u00e9tabli dans les Cat\u00e9gories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant \u00eatre \u00ab dans un sujet \u00bb au sens des Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du enkor\u014ds du trait\u00e9 permet \u00e0 Alexandre de lire les Cat\u00e9gories de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la s\u00e9mantique de ce trait\u00e9 \u00e0 son ontologie des natures immanentes.\r\n\r\nDe notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour int\u00e9grer les Cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 sa m\u00e9taphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l\u2019argument typique des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l\u2019ontologie des Cat\u00e9gories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nales que refl\u00e8te notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).\r\n\r\nBien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument \u00e0 la position d\u2019Alexandre : d\u2019abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, sugg\u00e8re qu\u2019Aristote, dans les Cat\u00e9gories, consid\u00e8re les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premi\u00e8res en tant qu\u2019elles sont premi\u00e8res quoad nos.\r\n\r\nUne fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9e cette solution canonique et bien attest\u00e9e depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s\u2019attaque \u00e0 Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premi\u00e8res par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).\r\n\r\nComme nous l\u2019avons montr\u00e9 plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l\u2019ontologie de la nature commune qu\u2019Alexandre d\u00e9veloppait pour d\u00e9fendre sa position. Cependant, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premi\u00e8res dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu\u2019Aristote \u00e9tablit dans les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nPour Alexandre, la lecture s\u00e9mantique des Cat\u00e9gories n\u2019avait donc pas pour but de d\u00e9tacher la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkor\u014ds, Alexandre rattache de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s \u00e9troite la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 son ontologie essentialiste.\r\n\r\nPar ailleurs, la lecture s\u00e9mantique du trait\u00e9 est parmi les \u00e9l\u00e9ments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Bo\u00e9thos. Tous deux pensent que les Cat\u00e9gories portent sur les mots signifiants. La diff\u00e9rence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la mani\u00e8re de concevoir la signification et dans les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s ontologiques qu\u2019ils mettent en \u0153uvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines s\u00e9mantiques.\r\n[conclusion p. 176-177]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"]}
Title | Chapter 7. Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity |
Pages | 421-487 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Panayiotis Tzamalikos |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle’s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras’ propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous. In this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius’ reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle’s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master’s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle’s allegations. We have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras’ principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius’ explanation, branding it as “Neoplatonic.” It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.¹ In this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras’ own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term “incorporeal,” even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term “incorporeal” a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning “incorporeal.” God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.² In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180–125 AD) boldly asserted that “God is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body”;³ for “nothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.”⁴ So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic. What is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term “incorporeal” (or indeed the term “principle”) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras’ principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be “logical to the bitter end.”⁵ It is now time for us to see Simplicius’ reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1597","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1597,"authors_free":[{"id":2798,"entry_id":1597,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Panayiotis Tzamalikos","free_first_name":"Panayiotis","free_last_name":"Tzamalikos","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"},"abstract":"The figment that Aristotle represented as the philosophy of Anaxagoras, without quoting any passage from it, was not an account of it; it was only a caricature contrived to serve the exposition of Aristotle\u2019s own views while either obscuring or berating critical points on which Anaxagoras had preceded Aristotle himself. This misrepresentation was based on two fundamental presumptions: one, that incorporeal principles were treated as corporeal elements; and two, that the number of these principles was infinite. Once this became the basis of consideration, Anaxagoras\u2019 propositions were bound to appear absurd and sometimes preposterous.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I will discuss Simplicius\u2019 reply to this. It is important to note from the outset that Simplicius was always gentle with Aristotle, which is one of the reasons that determined his methodology: he considered the arguments themselves, as well as their premises and context, but he took them to their ultimate consequences. This resulted in illogical theses that, of necessity, were attributed to Anaxagoras; yet those inferences were so self-defeating that not only this philosopher, but even the most unlearned writer, could never have presumed to posit them. This methodology is extended also to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, showing that the reproduction of their master\u2019s arguments (sometimes qualified but sometimes taken to their extreme consequences) only added to the absurdity of considering Anaxagoras on the basis of Aristotle\u2019s allegations.\r\n\r\nWe have seen so far that Simplicius explained that Anaxagoras\u2019 principles and his relevant considerations could make sense only if these principles are incorporeal. Scholars have always been all too quick to dismiss Simplicius\u2019 explanation, branding it as \u201cNeoplatonic.\u201d It never occurred to them that the case might have been that Neoplatonists (starting with Plotinus) found insightful notions in Anaxagoras, which they employed and built upon.\u00b9\r\n\r\nIn this section, we shall see that the incorporeality and non-infinity of the principles are the only way for this philosophy to make sense and to be interpreted consistently. Since Simplicius is virtually the sole source supplying us with Anaxagoras\u2019 own words, it should be observed that nowhere does Anaxagoras use the term \u201cincorporeal,\u201d even though his considerations can make sense only on that major postulate. So what? Is this a good reason to brush the idea aside? Were the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d a sine qua non condition for allowing the notion of incorporeality, I see no reason why God in Judaism, Christianity, or even Islam should not be described as corporeal (which indeed certain Christians, such as Melito of Sardis and Tertullian, did). Neither the Old nor the New Testament ever describes God with any term meaning \u201cincorporeal.\u201d God is depicted (and indeed described directly only in the Old Testament) as being unlike any of His created beings, from which Philo and later Origen derived their doctrine of the incorporeality of God.\u00b2 In the scriptures, God is only described as elevated above any likeness to creatures. Little wonder, then, that Tertullian (c. 180\u2013125 AD) boldly asserted that \u201cGod is a body even though He is a spirit, since spirit is also a sui generis body\u201d;\u00b3 for \u201cnothing is, unless it is a body; whatever is, it is a body of sorts; nothing is incorporeal, unless that which is not.\u201d\u2074 So did the apologist Melito of Sardis (died c. 180 AD, a Millenarist following Irenaeus), who was rebuked by Origen, even though the wise inquisitors of Christian doctrine canonized him as a saint while anathematizing Origen as a heretic.\r\n\r\nWhat is important, therefore, is not seeking whether the term \u201cincorporeal\u201d (or indeed the term \u201cprinciple\u201d) is explicitly stated or not. What is really needed is a perusal of what all aspects of a certain philosophy conspire to express, and this is what a brilliant intellect such as Simplicius offered. He explained Anaxagoras\u2019 principles as being incorporeal not because he aimed anachronistically to make him a Neoplatonist, but because all the aspects of that philosophy conduce to incorporeality, which was the sole way for any reader of Simplicius, and indeed of Anaxagoras himself, to be \u201clogical to the bitter end.\u201d\u2075\r\n\r\nIt is now time for us to see Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle and his commentators. Following his statements confirming the notion of incorporeal principles, he will also rebut the idea of these principles being infinite in number, arguing that not only did Anaxagoras not hold this notion, but also that he did not need it at all. [introduction p. 421-422]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1597,"section_of":1598,"pages":"421-487","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1598,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Anaxagoras, Origen, and Neoplatonism: The Legacy of Anaxagoras to Classical and Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tzamalikos2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Origen has been always studied as a theologian and too much credit has been given to Eusebius\u2019 implausible hagiography of him. This book explores who Origen really was, by pondering into his philosophical background, which determines his theological exposition implicitly, yet decisively. For this background to come to light, it took a ground-breaking exposition of Anaxagoras\u2019 philosophy and its legacy to Classical and Late Antiquity, assessing critically Aristotle\u2019s distorted representation of Anaxagoras. Origen, formerly a Greek philosopher of note, whom Proclus styled an anti-Platonist, is placed in the history of philosophy for the first time. By drawing on his Anaxagorean background, and being the first to revive the Anaxagorean Theory of Logoi, he paved the way to Nicaea. He was an anti-Platonist because he was an Anaxagorean philosopher with far-reaching influence, also on Neoplatonists such as Porphyry. His theology made an impact not only on the Cappadocians, but also on later Christian authors. His theory of the soul, now expounded in the light of his philosophical background, turns out more orthodox than that of some Christian stars of the Byzantine imperial orthodoxy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jKf4u1rcI40bQSE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1598,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte","volume":"128","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Chapter 7. Simplicius\u2019 reply to Aristotle"]}
Title | Commentators on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
Translator(s) |
There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care. Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis. The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle’s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement. [conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1306","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1306,"authors_free":[{"id":1930,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2097,"entry_id":1306,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle shared. What they shared was the practice of reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his works deserved to be studied with great care.\r\n\r\nDue to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle. No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary tradition, there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions. Different commentators developed different lines of interpretation in the light of the different concerns that motivated their exegesis.\r\n\r\nThe exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical works to explicating and extracting Aristotle\u2019s distinctive philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial agreement.\r\n[conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GtNhh0ejpXZdIhQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1306,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":{"id":1306,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":["Commentators on Aristotle"]}
Title | Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung |
Pages | 201-251 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Editor(s) | Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian |
Translator(s) |
The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1286","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1286,"authors_free":[{"id":1875,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2339,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2340,"entry_id":1286,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Schulze","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"The paper explores the structural aspects of the Arabic-Latin reception of Aristotle's works, particularly the approach or approaches taken by Arab philosophers in transmitting Aristotelian texts to the Latin Middle Ages. The author argues that the analysis of the doctrinal contents of the Arabic Aristotle is complex and instead focuses on the movement of rise and development of the medieval genre of philosophical commentary, particularly the line by line commentary typical of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The paper discusses the history and institutional context of the medieval philosophical commentary, including the influence of scriptural exegesis, literary and rhetorical traditions, and juridical and medical literature. The paper concludes that Neoplatonism was of paramount importance in the transmission of the Aristotelian corpus both to the Arabic and Latin Middle Ages. The paper also includes a synopsis of the Greek commentaries to Aristotle's works and their mentions in the Arab bio-bibliographical sources. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h8mLq4r5ceUYN0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1286,"section_of":267,"pages":"201-251","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Commenting on Aristotle. From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism"]}
Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
Pages | 92-117 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"]}
Title | Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Concepts of space in Greek thought |
Pages | 121-191 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Translator(s) |
The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place¹⁵¹—and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A—I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims. If we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established—and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so—and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle’s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4. There I investigated Aristotle’s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle’s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the ‘theoretical terms’ of the ‘physical system’ of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point. We might call this, with Morsink¹⁵², a process of ‘conjectures and refutations,’ as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such ‘conjectures’ usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance¹⁵³. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these ‘apparent features.’ A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle’s eventual ‘physical’ concept of place. All this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A. On the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate façon de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle’s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances. As a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to—and indeed started off from—the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato’s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1158","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1158,"authors_free":[{"id":1731,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2348,"entry_id":1158,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"},"abstract":"The investigations of the present chapter took the different concepts of place (topos) as they appear in the Corpus Aristotelicum as their starting point. First, in sections 4.1-4.3, I discussed the relationship between the concept of topos which appears in the course of the discussion of the category poson in the Cat. and the famous definition of topos established in Phys. A. Though scholars like Duhem and Jammer, and more recently, King and Mendell have taken these passages seriously as containing an unambiguous account of physical place\u00b9\u2075\u00b9\u2014and have consequently tried their hardest to establish in what way these passages were related to the account in Phys. A\u2014I concluded that they present enough problems of their own to invalidate such claims.\r\n\r\nIf we take the now more or less universally accepted relative chronology of the surviving school works as established\u2014and I have not been able to find reasons for not doing so\u2014and if we may thus assume that the Cat. was written some five or ten years earlier than Phys. A, we may conclude that insofar as we might speak of a development of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of place between the Cat. and Phys. A, this development should not be described as the substitution of one articulate view by another, but rather as a growing awareness of the problems inherent in the common-sense notions of place and space. This seemed to be confirmed by the findings of section 4.4.\r\n\r\nThere I investigated Aristotle\u2019s dialectical method in general and in Phys. A in particular. Against Owen on the one hand, and Morsink on the other, I argued that the data from which Aristotle\u2019s dialectical procedure in Phys. A took its start were for the most part what might be called the \u2018theoretical terms\u2019 of the \u2018physical system\u2019 of everyday thought. Concerning such a theoretical physical term as topos, which is not directly linked to experience, Aristotle took apparent facts, i.e., views endorsed by the world at large or by some individual philosophers, as his starting point.\r\n\r\nWe might call this, with Morsink\u00b9\u2075\u00b2, a process of \u2018conjectures and refutations,\u2019 as long as it is kept in mind that in Aristotelian dialectic such \u2018conjectures\u2019 usually do not spring forth from the genius of the individual physicist, but are largely determined by the conventions of everyday thought and common parlance\u00b9\u2075\u00b3. We saw that the whole further process boiled down to the scrutinizing and refining of these \u2018apparent features.\u2019 A number of them were rejected for involving insoluble aporiai. Those features that survived the dialectical investigation were incorporated in Aristotle\u2019s eventual \u2018physical\u2019 concept of place.\r\n\r\nAll this involved the recognition that ordinary thought and common parlance did not use the term topos in a very coherent manner and that the actual task of the physicist was to eliminate those connotations of the term which, for all their prima facie plausibility, turned out to be of no use in the context of physical theory as a whole. Thus, the relation between the account of topos in the Cat. and that of Phys. A could be explained. In the Cat., Aristotle was using topos in one of the at-first-sight plausible senses of common parlance, which were reviewed and rejected in Phys. A.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, as section 4.5 showed, this unorthodox concept of topos as a three-dimensional self-subsistent extension crops up in a number of passages in the more sophisticated physical writings as well, probably because, as an inveterate fa\u00e7on de parler, it was still hard to banish altogether, and probably also because Aristotle\u2019s own orthodox concept did not prove to be useful in all circumstances.\r\n\r\nAs a whole, the present chapter seems to corroborate our thesis of chapter 1, viz., that Greek philosophical theories of space and place were closely linked to\u2014and indeed started off from\u2014the ways in which spatial terms might be used in ordinary language. As I concluded in chapter 3, it was a more or less unreflective use of some of the ambiguities of common parlance which was partly responsible for the obscurities in Plato\u2019s receptacle account. In the present chapter, we noticed that in the course of his philosophical career, Aristotle did develop an awareness of the ambiguities and equivocations of everyday thinking and speaking and that for him, the conventions of ordinary language and the difficulties they involved constituted the raw material for his dialectical inquiries into the nature of such theoretical entities as place and space. [conclusion p. 189-191]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Vx1GYydMNj4awhc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1158,"section_of":232,"pages":"121-191","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Conceptions of Topos in Aristotle"]}
Title | Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition |
Pages | 178-200 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Aerts, Saskia |
Editor(s) | Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Petrucci, Federico Maria |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato’s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3. The key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the ‘harmony’ that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. ‘Harmony’ translates the Greek symphōnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.¹ However, the term ‘harmony’ is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept— instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.² Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.³ Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this ‘harmonizing tendency,’ as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators’ approaches.⁴ In this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics.⁵ Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of ‘harmony’ each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony. The harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is ‘merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.’⁶ Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias’ discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines. In addition to showing the individuality of these commentators’ approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SGsawecaEHSN9gD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1473,"authors_free":[{"id":2549,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":543,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Aerts, Saskia","free_first_name":"Saskia","free_last_name":"Aerts","norm_person":{"id":543,"first_name":"Saskia","last_name":"Aerts","full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2550,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2551,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2552,"entry_id":1473,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":544,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","free_first_name":"Federico Maria","free_last_name":"Petrucci","norm_person":{"id":544,"first_name":"Federico Maria","last_name":"Petrucci","full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1027675344","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul","main_title":{"title":"Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"},"abstract":"Aristotle plays a highly authoritative role in Neoplatonic philosophy, second only to the almost undisputed authority of Plato. However, as any reader of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s works knows, the views of the two philosophers often diverge and generate conflicts. These conflicts provide the Neoplatonic commentators with a serious interpretative challenge: although, as Platonists, their main goal is to defend Plato and the Platonist position, they are also hesitant to openly criticize Aristotle, who is regarded as a true adherent of Plato\u2019s philosophy. The commentators most prominently face such a challenge in the case of the self-moving soul, a core Platonic doctrine severely criticized by Aristotle, implicitly in Physics 8.5 and explicitly in De anima 1.3.\r\n\r\nThe key to dealing with these conflicting authorities lies in the exegetical act of explicating the \u2018harmony\u2019 that exists between the views of both philosophers. This approach relies on the idea that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle are fundamentally in agreement, which comes to the surface when their texts are interpreted in the right way. \u2018Harmony\u2019 translates the Greek symph\u014dnia, a term most notably used in this technical meaning by Simplicius.\u00b9 However, the term \u2018harmony\u2019 is problematic because it does not identify any absolute concept\u2014 instead, it can refer to any kind of agreement, ranging from mere compatibility to theoretical identity. What is more, the operative concept of harmony employed by modern scholars often bears the same ambiguity as its ancient counterpart.\u00b2 Most studies do not reflect on the polysemy of the term, and the notion of harmony used is not always well defined, which may lead to pointless debates on terminological matters.\u00b3 Moreover, the danger of overemphasizing the unity of this \u2018harmonizing tendency,\u2019 as I. Hadot calls it, lies in failing to take proper account of the diversity of the commentators\u2019 approaches.\u2074\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will present two parallel Neoplatonic discussions of the apparent disagreement between Plato and Aristotle about the self-moving soul, namely those of Hermias of Alexandria in his commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus and Simplicius of Cilicia in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics.\u2075 Since both philosophers ultimately argue that there is agreement between Aristotle and Plato, I will elucidate (i) what specific kind of \u2018harmony\u2019 each of the commentators assumes, (ii) what reasons each provides for supposing such a harmony, and (iii) which exegetical methods they use to explicate this harmony.\r\n\r\nThe harmonizing interpretations of Hermias and Simplicius on this issue have been discussed previously by S. Gertz, who claims that both commentators similarly argue that the disagreement between Plato and Aristotle is \u2018merely verbal, motivated by respect for the common usage of names.\u2019\u2076 Although I agree that this is the kind of harmony that Simplicius assumes, my interpretation of Hermias\u2019 discussion differs from the one proposed by Gertz. Despite some evident similarities in their approaches, I will suggest that Hermias defends a much less radical form of harmony than Simplicius: whereas Simplicius claims that the views of Plato and Aristotle are verbally different but philosophically identical, Hermias only intends to show that Aristotle would have to approve of the self-moving soul to remain faithful to and consistent with his own doctrines.\r\n\r\nIn addition to showing the individuality of these commentators\u2019 approaches in dealing with conflicting authorities, my analysis also aims at elucidating why it is so important for the commentators to defend the self-motion of the soul. As will become clear, the concept of self-motion is not only crucial in Neoplatonic psychology but also indispensable in their explanation of physical motion. [introduction p. 178-180]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SGsawecaEHSN9gD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":543,"full_name":"Aerts, Saskia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":544,"full_name":"Petrucci, Federico Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1473,"section_of":1474,"pages":"178-200","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZaiPIkzZzpNqhmG","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Conflicting Authorities? Hermias and Simplicius on the Self-Moving Soul"]}
Title | Counting Plato's Principles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition |
Pages | 67-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Ayres, Lewis |
Translator(s) |
The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries. In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles—the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites. Where Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are “the maker, the paradigm, and the end,” while the three auxiliary causes are “the matter, the form, and the instrument.” (Here, “form” must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views. Theophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called “receptive of all things” (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato “attaches to the power of god and of the good.” Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: “the matter, the maker, and the paradigm.” This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the “maker” being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle. Nothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the “paratactic” nature of this three-principles interpretation—treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate—with the “hierarchic” views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1026","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1026,"authors_free":[{"id":1549,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1550,"entry_id":1026,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":466,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ayres, Lewis","free_first_name":"Lewis","free_last_name":"Ayres","norm_person":{"id":466,"first_name":"Lewis","last_name":"Ayres,","full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138237336","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Counting Plato's Principles","main_title":{"title":"Counting Plato's Principles"},"abstract":"The classification of physical theories by the number of principles involved goes back to Aristotle (Physics 1.2), in a less formal way to Plato (Sophist 242c-d), and perhaps even further to the period of the Sophists. It is still echoed in modern textbooks on the Presocratics. What is perhaps less familiar is that, naturally enough, this approach was not, in antiquity, confined to the Presocratics. The present paper is concerned with ancient attempts to apply such an analysis to one notable successor of the Presocratics, namely Plato. It is greatly indebted to the work of scholars expert in the field, notably John Dillon and Harold Tarrant. However, I hope that it may present familiar material in a new perspective and, even if its main conclusion is highly speculative, stimulate further thought and debate on a period of the history of philosophy which, with some notable exceptions, has been too little studied in English-speaking countries.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 1.2, Simplicius, dealing with those who postulated a limited plurality of principles, mentions those who asserted two (Parmenides in the Way of Seeming and the Stoics), three (Aristotle himself, later in Physics 1), and four (Empedocles). He then deals with Plato and concludes with the Pythagoreans, who, he says, recognized ten principles\u2014the numbers of the decad, or the ten pairs in the Table of Opposites.\r\n\r\nWhere Plato is concerned, Simplicius first states his own view: that Plato postulated three causes (kurias) in the strict sense and three auxiliary causes (sunaitia). The causes in the strict sense are \u201cthe maker, the paradigm, and the end,\u201d while the three auxiliary causes are \u201cthe matter, the form, and the instrument.\u201d (Here, \u201cform\u201d must refer to the Aristotelian immanent form as opposed to the transcendent Platonic paradigm.) But Simplicius then goes on to cite two other views.\r\n\r\nTheophrastus, he says, assigned only two principles to Plato: matter, called \u201creceptive of all things\u201d (clearly the Receptacle of Timaeus 51A, generally equated with matter by later interpreters), and the cause and source of movement, which Theophrastus says Plato \u201cattaches to the power of god and of the good.\u201d Alexander of Aphrodisias, however, attributed to Plato three principles: \u201cthe matter, the maker, and the paradigm.\u201d This seems a reasonable interpretation of the Timaeus, the \u201cmaker\u201d being the Demiurge. For if a principle is that which is primary, not preceded by anything else, then, on a literal interpretation of the Timaeus, the Demiurge, the Forms (which he uses as his model), and the Receptacle each seem to be ultimates, not derived from any further principle.\r\n\r\nNothing is said in the Timaeus about the derivation of the Forms from the One or the Good; and the Receptacle does not derive from another principle in the way Neoplatonist Matter derives from the One. Indeed, Dorrie contrasts the \u201cparatactic\u201d nature of this three-principles interpretation\u2014treating the principles as equal and co-ordinate\u2014with the \u201chierarchic\u201d views of Xenocrates, and sees the former as holding back the development of transcendence in Platonism. Certain passages of the Timaeus suggest rather a two-principles interpretation, but here the principles would be the Receptacle and the Forms, rather than the Demiurge. [introduction p. 67-70]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/puTtXSWDrrAPkL9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":466,"full_name":"Ayres, Lewis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1026,"section_of":318,"pages":"67-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":318,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Passionate Intellect. Essays on the Transformation of Classical Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ayres1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Ian Kidd, of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, has long been known as a world-class scholar of ancient philosophy and of Posidonius, in particular. Through his long struggle with the fragments of Posidonius, Kidd has done more than any other scholar of ancient philosophy to dispel the myth of \"Pan-Posidonianism.\" He has presented a clearer picture of the Posidonius to whom we may have access. The Passionate Intellect is both a Festschrift offered to Professor Kidd and an important collection of essays on the transformation of classical traditions.\r\n\r\nThe bulk of this volume is built around the theme of Kidd's own inaugural lecture at St. Andrews, \"The Passionate Intellect.\" Many of the contributions follow this theme through by examining how individual people and texts influenced the direction of various traditions. The chapters cover the whole of the classical and late antique periods, including the main genres of classical literature and history, and the gradual emergence of Christian literature and themes in late antiquity.\r\n\r\nMany of the papers naturally concentrate on ancient philosophy and its legacy. Others deal with ancient literary theory, history, poetry, and drama. Most of the papers deal with their subjects at some length and are significant contributions in their own right. The contributors to this collection include key figures hi contemporary classical scholarship, including: C. Carey (London); C. J. Classen (Gottingen); J. Dillon (Dublin); K. J. Dover (St. Andrews); W. W. Fortenbaugh (Rutgers); H. M. Hine (St. Andrews); J. Mansfeld (Utrecht); R. Janko and R. Sharpies (London); and J. S. Richardson (Edinburgh). This book will be invaluable to philosophers, classicists, and cultural historians. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2DA4PTzcMdBrmHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":318,"pubplace":"New Brunswick \u2013 London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Counting Plato's Principles"]}
Title | Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 332-347 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Ackeren, Marcel van , Müller, Jörn |
Translator(s) |
In gewisser Weise bestätigen diese Überlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass „sich eine vollkommen verrückte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies“ (1990, 5). Philoponos’ und Priskians Ausführungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele dafür, wie das Vorverständnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu führte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein originäres Interesse sowohl für den Philosophiehistoriker als auch für denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist. Zudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tatsächlich als „verrückt“ bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. Für die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verrückt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identität zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit über die gesamte ältere Tradition gegenüber den Ansprüchen des Christentums zu erhalten. Zudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der Königsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorgänger zu studieren und das zu übernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beiträgt. Das ist eine Maxime für das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualität verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1149","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1149,"authors_free":[{"id":1724,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2453,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":485,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","free_first_name":"Marcel","free_last_name":"Ackeren, van","norm_person":{"id":485,"first_name":"Marcel","last_name":"Ackeren, van","full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129255769","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2455,"entry_id":1149,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":486,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","free_first_name":"J\u00f6rn","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":486,"first_name":"J\u00f6rn","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132026864","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles","main_title":{"title":"Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles"},"abstract":"In gewisser Weise best\u00e4tigen diese \u00dcberlegungen Sorabjis Feststellung, dass \u201esich eine vollkommen verr\u00fcckte Position (die Harmonie) als philosophisch fruchtbar erwies\u201c (1990, 5). Philoponos\u2019 und Priskians Ausf\u00fchrungen sind in der Tat gute Beispiele daf\u00fcr, wie das Vorverst\u00e4ndnis, es bestehe eine Harmonie zwischen Platon und Aristoteles, dazu f\u00fchrte, dass die aristotelischen Texte in einer originellen Weise interpretiert wurden, die zu neuen philosophischen Entwicklungen Anlass gab. Insofern behalten die Kommentare ein origin\u00e4res Interesse sowohl f\u00fcr den Philosophiehistoriker als auch f\u00fcr denjenigen, der an originellen Gedanken und Ideen aus einer systematischen Perspektive interessiert ist.\r\n\r\nZudem stellt sich die Frage, ob man die These der Harmonie tats\u00e4chlich als \u201everr\u00fcckt\u201c bezeichnen soll. So mag sie manchem scheinen, der aus der Perspektive moderner historisch-kritischer Forschung einen deutlichen Unterschied von Platon und Aristoteles erkennt. F\u00fcr die Kommentatoren selbst war die Harmonisierung aber definitiv nicht verr\u00fcckt, sondern sie war, wie oben bereits angedeutet, unter den Bedingungen ihrer Zeit ein wichtiges Mittel dazu, die eigene Identit\u00e4t zu wahren und die Deutungshoheit \u00fcber die gesamte \u00e4ltere Tradition gegen\u00fcber den Anspr\u00fcchen des Christentums zu erhalten.\r\n\r\nZudem macht die Harmonie auf ein anderes Charakteristikum der neuplatonischen Philosophie aufmerksam, das Simplikios herausstreicht: Das Ziel des Philosophierens besteht darin, durch die Suche nach der Wahrheit als Mensch zu wachsen. Der K\u00f6nigsweg der Neuplatoniker zu diesem Ziel ist es, die Werke ihrer Vorg\u00e4nger zu studieren und das zu \u00fcbernehmen, was zu diesem Ziel beitr\u00e4gt. Das ist eine Maxime f\u00fcr das philosophische Studium, die bis heute nichts von ihrer Aktualit\u00e4t verloren hat. [conclusion p. 347]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iwVpoc1bGR9ng0D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":485,"full_name":"Ackeren, Marcel van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":486,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, J\u00f6rn","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1149,"section_of":306,"pages":"332-347","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":306,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Antike Philosophie verstehen \u2013 Understanding Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"vanAckeren_M\u00fcller_2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Der mit international bekannten Fachleuten (Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, Dorothea Frede, Christoph Rapp, Terence Irwin u.a.) sehr hochkar\u00e4tig besetzte Band geht das Denken der Antike von einer neuen Seite an. Die deutsch- und englischsprachigen Texte setzen an den entscheidenden Stellen an, an denen ein Verst\u00e4ndnis scheitern kann; sie bieten Deutungsmuster f\u00fcr den modernen Leser und erl\u00e4utern die Probleme, die beim Interpretieren der Philosophie der Antike entstehen k\u00f6nnen. Welche Textformen gibt es, welche \u00dcbersetzungsprobleme k\u00f6nnen auftreten und wie wurden uns die alten Dokumente \u00fcberhaupt \u00fcberliefert? Durch den internationalen Zugang und die Einbeziehung \u00e4lterer Texte, die f\u00fcr ihre jeweiligen Bereiche Standards gesetzt haben, wird hier ein Grundlagenwerk vorgelegt, das f\u00fcr viele Jahre eine Rolle in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion spielen wird. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HHFDfWDciwoyh50","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":306,"pubplace":"Darmstadt","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles"]}
Title | Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Prädikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 208-229 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zunächst, die Rückführbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu überprüfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt erschüttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Prädikaten ebensowenig eine zuverlässige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den φυσικαὶ δόξαι, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"434","_score":null,"_source":{"id":434,"authors_free":[{"id":584,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2169,"entry_id":434,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?","main_title":{"title":"Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"},"abstract":"Ziel dieses Kapitels war es zun\u00e4chst, die R\u00fcckf\u00fchrbarkeit des Xenophanes-Referates von Simplikios und MXG auf Theophrast anhand eines Beispiels zu \u00fcberpr\u00fcfen. Wenn dabei die These von Steinmetz an einem entscheidenden Punkt ersch\u00fcttert worden ist, da MXG mit den antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikaten ebensowenig eine zuverl\u00e4ssige Wiedergabe des Eresiers sein kann wie Simplikios, stellt sich die Frage: Was wird aus seiner Herleitung der beiden Parallelberichte teils aus den \u03c6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9, teils aus der Physik? [conclusion p. 229]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Dxf4dLb8SNzbok","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":434,"section_of":2,"pages":"208-229","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Das Xenophanesreferat von MXG - Eine Wiedergabe Theophrasts? Zur These von Peter Steinmetz: 1. Theophrast als Autor der antinomischen Pr\u00e4dikate (MXG 977 b 3-18, Simpl.Phys. 23, 4-14)?"]}
Title | Dating of Philoponus’ Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 367-392 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus’ work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus’ changing treatment of Aristotle’s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius’ Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken’s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating. The second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus’ seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus’ commentarial (skholastikai) notes (aposêmeiôseis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus’ name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idiôn) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry’s Introduction (Isagôgê), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle’s logic. All this could have several important implications. First, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus’ own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius’ seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius’ lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius’ lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving. However, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli’s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius’ seminars and Philoponus’ (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus’ editions of Ammonius’ lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry’s Isagôgê, and on Aristotle’s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics. So far, Golitsis’ conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1531","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1531,"authors_free":[{"id":2667,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2668,"entry_id":1531,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius","main_title":{"title":"Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"},"abstract":"There have been two major hypotheses since 1990, and much valuable discussion concerning the dating of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle and of his divergence from Ammonius. In 1990, Koenraad Verrycken summarized in Aristotle Transformed his new datings for Philoponus\u2019 work, drawing on apparent contradictions in his statements about the eternity or coming-into-being of the universe and its contents, about the nature of place, and about the possibility of vacuum and of motion in a vacuum. His earlier dissertation of 1985 also included Philoponus\u2019 changing treatment of Aristotle\u2019s prime matter. He suggested solving these problems by postulating a phase around 517 CE in which Philoponus accepted his teacher Ammonius\u2019 Neoplatonism and interpretation of Aristotle as agreeing with Plato and with Neoplatonism, and a later phase in which he reverted to his Christian origins on the level of doctrine and repudiated the Neoplatonist and Aristotelian ideas, especially where, as with eternity or the Creation of the universe, they contradicted Christian ideas. This called for a second edition of some earlier commentaries on Aristotle after 529 CE. Verrycken was aware that his particular dating might not be accepted, and even that the appearance of a Neoplatonist or Aristotelian view might sometimes be due to the expository nature of commentary on Aristotle. This and other explanations have since been proffered, and the particular dating has received widespread criticism, which I have summarized elsewhere. Nonetheless, even if Philoponus does not juxtapose as often as suggested different viewpoints of his own, Verrycken\u2019s citations establish that he does develop different viewpoints across a wide range of texts and topics, so that it remains necessary to consider his evidence in formulating any alternative dating.\r\n\r\nThe second major hypothesis was offered in 2008 by Pantelis Golitsis, who exploited an underused source of evidence that bears on several questions. He has also been kind enough to discuss at two workshops his further work in preparation. I shall, however, refer to his 2008 publication, except where explicitly stated. Philoponus\u2019 seven commentaries on Aristotle are divided into books, and four commentaries are, or at least some books in four commentaries are, described in their titles as being Philoponus\u2019 commentarial (skholastikai) notes (apos\u00eamei\u00f4seis) from the meetings (sunousiai), i.e., seminar sessions, of Ammonius (his teacher), with Philoponus\u2019 name or other designation coming first. The four are in An. Pr., in An. Post., in DA, and in GC. The last three of these four are described as containing further (critical) reflections (more below on the meaning of epistaseis) of his own (idi\u00f4n) by Philoponus. The remaining three of Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle are not ascribed to the seminars of Ammonius. Philoponus also refers twice to a commentary, now lost, on Porphyry\u2019s Introduction (Isag\u00f4g\u00ea), his introduction that is, on one interpretation, to Aristotle\u2019s logic. All this could have several important implications.\r\n\r\nFirst, although the titles of his commentaries were written in by successive scribes, Golitsis has sought out the best manuscripts and has taken them to represent Philoponus\u2019 own description, and from this he has inferred quite a precise timetable for Philoponus\u2019 commentaries on Aristotle. The commentaries whose book titles refer to Ammonius\u2019 seminars were written first and commissioned as editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures as they were delivered in the order of the standard curriculum between 510 and 515. Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, which contains a lecture dated to 517, is not connected in its book titles with Ammonius\u2019 lectures in the modern edition of Vitelli under the general editorship of Diels, and moreover, it contains open disagreement with Ammonius. If that is right, the commentary will reflect courses that Philoponus himself was giving.\r\n\r\nHowever, Golitsis allows me to mention that in further work, he will now be taking seriously Trincavelli\u2019s earlier alternative reading of the manuscript title, which does, at the beginning of the commentary on Physics Book One, mention both Ammonius\u2019 seminars and Philoponus\u2019 (critical) reflections, and he will be explaining the transformative consequences. Philoponus\u2019 editions of Ammonius\u2019 lectures will have included, again, Golitsis suggests, in the order of the standard curriculum: on Porphyry\u2019s Isag\u00f4g\u00ea, and on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, then on the eighth book of his Physics, which precedes the lecture of 517 on the Physics, whether or not the series includes more on the Physics.\r\n\r\nSo far, Golitsis\u2019 conclusion rightly observes the standard view that most commentaries on Aristotle reflect teaching classes. But, by way of exception, the commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Meteorology is not connected by any titles to Ammonius, and Golitsis argues it does not appear to reflect teaching either, so was written after Philoponus had stopped teaching courses on Aristotle. The task now, as I see it, is to consider how far the new considerations about titles, combined with many others, including some highlighted by Verrycken, can enable us to confirm or disconfirm the details of dating and divergence and provide a modified picture. [introduction p. 367-369]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6Gmj6C363y2Apg8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1531,"section_of":1419,"pages":"367-392","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Dating of Philoponus\u2019 Commentaries on Aristotle and of his Divergence from his Teacher Ammonius"]}
Title | Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platon und die Physis |
Pages | 241-253 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann |
Translator(s) |
In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2381,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":131,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Koch, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Koch","norm_person":{"id":131,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Koch","full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102787925X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":454,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","norm_person":{"id":454,"first_name":"Irmgard","last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122904796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","free_first_name":"Niels","free_last_name":"Weidtmann ","norm_person":{"id":455,"first_name":"Niels","last_name":"Weidtmann","full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121934438","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":131,"full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":454,"full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":455,"full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im \u00fcbertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder G\u00f6ttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und p\u00e4dagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgen\u00f6ssische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen \u00dcberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist f\u00fcr die genannten Fragestellungen h\u00f6chst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung sp\u00e4terer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"]}
Title | Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung |
Pages | 183-199 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Geerlings, Wilhelm , Schulze, Christian |
Translator(s) |
Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird für uns vom ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an faßbar und verdankt seine Entstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, daß von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erklärung der Texte ihrer Schulgründer Platon, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erklärungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, daß er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommentar zu einem stoischen Text überliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handbüchlein' des Epiktet, der aber natürlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoischen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":521,"authors_free":[{"id":727,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1996,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":159,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Geerlings","norm_person":{"id":159,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Geerlings","full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/108944352","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1997,"entry_id":521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":160,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schulze, Christian","free_first_name":"Schulze","free_last_name":"Christian","norm_person":{"id":160,"first_name":"Christian ","last_name":"Schulze","full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124517706","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike","main_title":{"title":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike"},"abstract":"Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar wird f\u00fcr uns vom ers\u00adten vorchristlichen Jahrhundert an fa\u00dfbar und verdankt seine Ent\u00adstehung der wohlbekannten Tatsache, da\u00df von diesem Zeitpunkt an in allen Philosophenschulen der Antike der Unterricht mehr und mehr die Form einer Erkl\u00e4rung der Texte ihrer Schulgr\u00fcnder Pla\u00adton, Aristoteles, Epikur und Chrysipp annimmt. Vorher wird es wohl nur Erkl\u00e4rungen zu schwierigen Stellen gegeben haben. Von den Kommentaren zu den Werken des Chrysipp ist nichts erhalten, aber wir wissen z.B. von dem Stoiker Epiktet, da\u00df er in seinem Unterricht Chrysipp kommentierte, wie die Platoniker und Peripatetiker Platon und Aristoteles. Es ist uns nur ein einziger fortlaufender Kommen\u00adtar zu einem stoischen Text \u00fcberliefert worden, der des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum 'Handb\u00fcchlein' des Epiktet, der aber nat\u00fcrlich nicht eine stoische, sondern eine neuplatonische Exegese des stoi\u00adschen Textes liefert. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sbjj47InbPVG3Mz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":159,"full_name":"Geerlings, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":160,"full_name":"Schulze, Christian ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":521,"section_of":267,"pages":"183-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":267,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beitr\u00e4ge zu seiner Erforschung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Geerlings2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This collection of essays deals with the often neglected literary genre 'commentary' in ancient and medieval times. It is based on the work of the Bochum Graduiertenkolleg 237, where aspects such as definition, form and history of commentary texts, implicit commentation, pictures and paintings as commentaries were discussed. This volume presents a choice of 16 lectures which accompanied the colloquia from 1996.\r\nIntroductions, but also special topics from the perspectives of theology, philosophy, classical philology, medical history, Arabic and Jewish Studies are given by the contributors. Great emphasis is laid on the interdisciplinary connection between these different points of view, for example by discussing the question on the impact pagan rhetoric had on Christian commentary texts. Further interest is focused on relevant literature - medicine, grammar, philosophy - and its commentaries. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1UBcu6mm8yedNBR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":267,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Clavis commentariorum antiquitatis et medii aevi","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommentar in der Antike"]}
Title | Die Beweise für die Unbewegtheit und Unveränderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 99-164 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Prägen völlig eindeutig ist, erwähnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 Körperlichkeit des Einen für Melissos: hôs autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das spätere kai autos houtô g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverlässigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erklären mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet. Wenn (a) kai touto sôma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat hôs autos legei gehört, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekundärquelle geschöpft sein; aber auch falls (b) hôs autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto sôma bereits ein eigenständiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inadäquate Ausdeutungen daran anknüpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von sôma und mere für den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine über das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verfügbar waren. Gegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unkörperlichkeit für das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum körperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to haplôs on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus natürlich nicht übersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie hätten nichts außer den tôn aisthetôn ousia angenommen, auf die sie die für die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins übertragen hätten. Melissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte – stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein – nach einem Aufriss gemäß den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den geläufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegenüber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Prädikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden. In diesen Zusammenhang ließ sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Berührungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... eiê bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen genügen müsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-Sätze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter heißt, sôma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos für das Seiende eine solche Körperlichkeit ausschließen. [conclusion p. 163-164] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"435","_score":null,"_source":{"id":435,"authors_free":[{"id":585,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2168,"entry_id":435,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)","main_title":{"title":"Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"},"abstract":"Wie nach der Diskussion aller textlichen Pr\u00e4gen v\u00f6llig eindeutig ist, erw\u00e4hnt der MXG-Autor in 976a12 K\u00f6rperlichkeit des Einen f\u00fcr Melissos: h\u00f4s autos legei meint diesen Eleaten ebenso wie das sp\u00e4tere kai autos hout\u00f4 g' einai axioi in 976a23. Die Stelle ist zur Beurteilung der Zuverl\u00e4ssigkeit des Autors von Wert, wie immer man sie erkl\u00e4ren mag, weil Kenntnis des Originals auf jeden Fall ausscheidet.\r\n\r\nWenn (a) kai touto s\u00f4ma, wie es den Anschein hat, noch zu dem Zitat h\u00f4s autos legei geh\u00f6rt, kann diese Angabe nur aus einer Sekund\u00e4rquelle gesch\u00f6pft sein; aber auch falls (b) h\u00f4s autos legei, wie Apelt annimmt, allein auf ev zu beziehen ist und kai touto s\u00f4ma bereits ein eigenst\u00e4ndiger Zusatz des MXG-Autors ist, kann diesem die Aussage des Originals kaum bekannt gewesen sein. Denn in seiner Stellungnahme geht der Anonymus, selbst wenn er z.T. inad\u00e4quate Ausdeutungen daran ankn\u00fcpft (z.B. homoion als homoimeres), prinzipiell von den ihm bekannten Thesen des Melissos aus. Die Annahme von s\u00f4ma und mere f\u00fcr den Eleaten kann daher eigentlich nur bedeuten, dass dessen wirkliche Ansichten dem Autor nicht vorlagen, ihm also offenbar keine \u00fcber das Referat hinausgehenden Positionen des Melissos verf\u00fcgbar waren.\r\n\r\nGegen das Zeugnis des Simplikios lassen sich somit die Angaben von MXG, wie es Zeller wollte, nicht ausspielen. Der Neuplatoniker sagt mit Recht Unk\u00f6rperlichkeit f\u00fcr das melisseische Seiende aus; wenn er von diesem als ideellem, vollkommenem im Gegensatz zum k\u00f6rperlichen, kontingenten Seienden spricht (Simpl. Phys. 650,5) und in der Paraphrase den Terminus to hapl\u00f4s on anwendet (Phys. 103,18-19), darf der Abstand zu dem ideellen Seienden des mit Platon einsetzenden Dualismus nat\u00fcrlich nicht \u00fcbersehen werden. Die Eleaten verbleiben auf der Ebene dieses Seins, wie es Aristoteles (Cael. I 1, 298b21 ff.) sehr deutlich formuliert: Sie h\u00e4tten nichts au\u00dfer den t\u00f4n aisthet\u00f4n ousia angenommen, auf die sie die f\u00fcr die Existenz von Wissen notwendigen, von ihnen zuerst erkannten Charakteristika des eigentlichen Seins \u00fcbertragen h\u00e4tten.\r\n\r\nMelissos ist dabei radikaler als Parmenides verfahren: Dieser hatte \u2013 stets unter Bezug auf dieses Sein \u2013 nach einem Aufriss gem\u00e4\u00df den Forderungen des Denkens dann in der Doxa-Lehre den gel\u00e4ufigen Anschauungen in gewisser Weise Rechnung getragen; demgegen\u00fcber betrachtet Melissos dieses Sein allein unter dem Gesichtspunkt der deduzierten Pr\u00e4dikate. Einen mit Parmenides vergleichbaren Doxateil, wie es Reinhardt annehmen wollte, gibt es bei ihm nicht; wohl aber gibt es, wie die voraufgehenden Untersuchungen gezeigt haben, einen zweiten Teil der Schrift des Melissos, in dem pluralistische Konzeptionen wie Vielheit und Mischung am eleatischen Einen und seinen Eigenschaften gemessen und abgelehnt wurden.\r\n\r\nIn diesen Zusammenhang lie\u00df sich auch das umstrittene fr. B9 einordnen, dessen sprachliche Formulierung enge Ber\u00fchrungen mit B8 aufweist: ei ... ei\u00ea bezieht sich auf die gegnerische Konzeption (B9 wie B8,6), die im Falle einer wirklichen Existenz dem Kriterium des eleatischen Einen gen\u00fcgen m\u00fcsste (dei-Satz in B9, kei-S\u00e4tze in B8,6; B8,2). Wenn nun, wie es in B9 weiter hei\u00dft, s\u00f4ma und pachos Teile implizieren, musste Melissos f\u00fcr das Seiende eine solche K\u00f6rperlichkeit ausschlie\u00dfen. [conclusion p. 163-164]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rdmGYdcJSPKrtIL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":435,"section_of":2,"pages":"99-164","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die Beweise f\u00fcr die Unbewegtheit und Unver\u00e4nderlichkeit des Seienden (MXG 974 a 14 - b 8)"]}
Title | Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 17-41 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen für den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsmöglichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Auszüge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase für den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Prädikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit günstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten über den Grad der Authentizität des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt hält den Bericht für zuverlässig, da jede spätere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Prädikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien. Gigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar "bedeutend schlechter" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von wörtlicher Nähe zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Prädikate und der Hinzufügung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) äußerten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Gedächtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzufügung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu. Während bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein völlig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzufügungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen Möglichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erklärung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht könne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden. Es soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizität und die Art eventueller Zusätze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit günstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien für die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenmäßig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dnhawLwLUUqppPb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"436","_score":null,"_source":{"id":436,"authors_free":[{"id":586,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2167,"entry_id":436,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung","main_title":{"title":"Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"},"abstract":"Von den drei Referaten der Schrift MXG bestehen f\u00fcr den Melissos-Abschnitt die besten Vergleichsm\u00f6glichkeiten, da Simplikios bekanntlich umfangreiche Ausz\u00fcge aus der Schrift des Melissos exzerpiert hat und daneben eine Paraphrase f\u00fcr den Teil der Schrift bietet, der die Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden behandelt. Obwohl die Quellenlage also weit g\u00fcnstiger ist als im Falle des Xenophanes, finden sich doch divergierende Ansichten \u00fcber den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t des Melissos-Referats: Reinhardt h\u00e4lt den Bericht f\u00fcr zuverl\u00e4ssig, da jede sp\u00e4tere Dialektik fehle, mehrfach noch der Wortlaut des Originals durchscheine und die entscheidenden Pr\u00e4dikate des Seienden exakt beibehalten seien.\r\n\r\nGigon nennt den Abschnitt zwar \"bedeutend schlechter\" als das Gorgias-Referat, doch blicke der Text des Melissos unverkennbar durch. Calogero stellt das Nebeneinander von w\u00f6rtlicher N\u00e4he zum Original und von Unexaktheiten fest, die sich in der falschen Abfolge einzelner Pr\u00e4dikate und der Hinzuf\u00fcgung von Theorien (Mischungslehre) \u00e4u\u00dferten, und denkt daher an eine Wiedergabe der Melissos-Schrift aus dem Ged\u00e4chtnis. Untersteiner schreibt einige dialektische Ausarbeitungen und die Hinzuf\u00fcgung der Mischungslehre dem Megariker zu.\r\n\r\nW\u00e4hrend bei diesen Forschern der Melissos-Abschnitt als im Ganzen wertvoll bezeichnet wird, hat Loenen ein v\u00f6llig negatives Urteil abgegeben: Der Bericht enthalte einerseits Hinzuf\u00fcgungen aller Art, vor allem Unterscheidungen von im Original nicht vorhandenen M\u00f6glichkeiten (Entstehung von allem oder nicht allem 974a3-9, Bewegung ins Volle oder ins Leere 974a16-18, Mischungslehre 974a21-b2), andererseits Auslassungen, z.B. fehle die Erkl\u00e4rung wichtiger Termini wie etwa des homoeomeries-Begriffs. Dem Bericht k\u00f6nne deshalb historischer Wert nicht zuerkannt werden.\r\n\r\nEs soll nun der Melissos-Abschnitt mit dem Original verglichen werden, um den Grad der Authentizit\u00e4t und die Art eventueller Zus\u00e4tze genau zu ermitteln. Dies bedeutet zugleich den Versuch, bei einem Abschnitt mit g\u00fcnstiger Vergleichslage Kriterien f\u00fcr die Beurteilung des umstrittenen, quellenm\u00e4\u00dfig weit weniger gesicherten Xenophanes-Referats zu gewinnen. [conclusion p. 40-41]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dnhawLwLUUqppPb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":436,"section_of":2,"pages":"17-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die Schrift De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia in der neueren Forschung"]}
Title | Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des spätantiken Denkens / Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in Würzburg |
Pages | 323-342 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Kobusch, Theo , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es für ihn nicht förderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einführung handelt, die den Erwerb der bürgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplatonischen Kommentierung des Handbüchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerlässlich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars über die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatonischen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erklärterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handbüchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Ausübung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte dafür, daß Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegenüber dem Verhältnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen hätte, d.h. daß, bei aller Wichtigkeit und Unerlässlichkeit der Theurgie, auch für ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Voraussetzung bleibt. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"674","_score":null,"_source":{"id":674,"authors_free":[{"id":990,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":991,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":163,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kobusch, Theo","free_first_name":"Theo","free_last_name":"Kobusch","norm_person":{"id":163,"first_name":"Theo","last_name":"Kobusch","full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115417486","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":992,"entry_id":674,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie","main_title":{"title":"Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie"},"abstract":"Der Epiktetkommentar ist dazu bestimmt, dem Leser die sittlichen Grundhaltungen zu vermitteln, ohne die es f\u00fcr ihn nicht f\u00f6r\u00adderlich ist, ein Studium der Philosophie zu beginnen. Da es sich somit um eine allgemein gehaltene Einf\u00fch\u00adrung handelt, die den Erwerb der b\u00fcrgerlichen Tugenden mit Hilfe der neuplato\u00adnischen Kommentierung des Handb\u00fcchleins des Epiktet zum Ziel hat wird im Verfolg des zu kommentierenden Textes eine breite Palette von philosophischen Fragen kurz angesprochen, ohne in die Tiefen des philosophischen Systems vorzudringen. Es ist daher unerl\u00e4sslich, bei der Interpretierung des Epiktetkommentars \u00fcber die traditionellen neuplatonischen Lehren informiert zu sein, wenn man den dogmatischen Hintergrund der Darlegungen des Simplikios erfassen will: Die Aneignung der ersten Stufe des neuplatoni\u00adschen Tugendkanons, der politischen Tugenden, die erkl\u00e4rterweise das Ziel des Kommentars zum Handb\u00fcchlein des Epiktet ist, geht mit der Aus\u00fcbung der Kultriten einher, wenn sie wohl auch im allgemeinen zur Zeit des Simplikios nur noch im privaten Rahmen stattfinden konnten. Es gibt keine Anhaltspunkte daf\u00fcr, da\u00df Simplikios eine im Vergleich zu Jamblich, Hierokles und Proklos abweichende Haltung gegen\u00fcber dem Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philo\u00adsophie zu Religion und Theurgie eingenommen h\u00e4tte, d.h. da\u00df, bei aller Wich\u00adtigkeit und Unerl\u00e4sslichkeit der Theurgie, auch f\u00fcr ihn die Philosophie mit ihrer rationalen Erfassung der metaphysischen Themen eine unabdingbare Vorausset\u00adzung bleibt. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0gw38rZ6TRENJZm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":163,"full_name":"Kobusch, Theo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":674,"section_of":265,"pages":"323-342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sp\u00e4tantiken Denkens \/ Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. M\u00e4rz 2001 in W\u00fcrzburg","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kobusch\/Erler2002b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"\r\nDie Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde enthalten Monographien, Sammelb\u00e4nde, Editionen, \u00dcbersetzungen und Kommentare zu Themen aus den Bereichen Klassische, Mittel- und Neulateinische Philologie, Alte Geschichte, Arch\u00e4ologie, Antike Philosophie sowie Nachwirken der Antike bis in die Neuzeit. Dadurch leistet die Reihe einen umfassenden Beitrag zur Erschlie\u00dfung klassischer Literatur und zur Forschung im gesamten Gebiet der Altertumswissenschaften. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lv1Opvh3eZrvkIS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":265,"pubplace":"M\u00fcnchen - Leipzig","publisher":"Saur","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die Stellung des Neuplatonikers Simplikios zum Verh\u00e4ltnis der Philosophie zu Religion und Theurgie"]}
Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 43-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis. Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte. Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht. Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1198,"authors_free":[{"id":1768,"entry_id":1198,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"},"abstract":"Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E w\u00e4hrend der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn \u00fcberhaupt. F\u00fcr die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.\r\n\r\nDoch gibt es, auch wenn die sp\u00e4tere Geschichte des Paris. sehr r\u00e4tselhaft ist, gute Gr\u00fcnde anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili \"Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca\" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1\u201376) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.\r\n\r\nEs liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librer\u00eda Privata geh\u00f6rte: \"It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492).\" Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umst\u00e4nden die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. M\u00f6glicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.\r\n\r\nDie sp\u00e4tere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1198,"section_of":10,"pages":"43-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"]}
Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 315-350 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1. Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander. Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":2131,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"},"abstract":"Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Texttr\u00e4ger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu ber\u00fccksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verst\u00e4ndnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Haupttr\u00e4gern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.\r\n\r\nEinige Aspekte der indirekten \u00dcberlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit h\u00e4ngt die syrisch-arabische \u00dcbersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebr\u00e4ische \u00dcbertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskr\u00e4ftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.\r\n\r\nNoch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbez\u00fcglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zur\u00fcck, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, n\u00e4mlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vin\u00e4. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1382,"section_of":10,"pages":"315-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"]}
Title | Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Pages | 169-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Burkert, Walter |
Editor(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"]}
Title | Diogenes revisited |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 281-290 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels’ devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels’ view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes’ thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?). Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant—some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of “Material Monism” (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham’s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70). In what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1186","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1186,"authors_free":[{"id":1758,"entry_id":1186,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diogenes revisited","main_title":{"title":"Diogenes revisited"},"abstract":"In the first edition of this book (1983), I made an attempt to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least after Diels\u2019 devastating 1881 article, in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diels showed, particularly through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds, that Diogenes was quite popular in the last third of the 5th century (a popularity that has been confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus). His popularity, however, was in Diels\u2019 view a confirmation of the unserious quality of Diogenes\u2019 thinking (are not serious thinkers always ignored by the vulgar?).\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant\u2014some publishing companies obviously think that the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised.\r\n\r\nIt is all the more noteworthy that Graham (2006) has made Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real initiator of the doctrine of \u201cMaterial Monism\u201d (chap. 10). I personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution on this point is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism for an Anaximenean pluralism, which is Graham\u2019s paradoxical point (see above, p. 70).\r\n\r\nIn what follows, I just want to restate briefly what seem to me to be the two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology. The second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 281-282]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q5b1PHFAeBZnhpa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1186,"section_of":351,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Diogenes revisited"]}
Title | Dunamis in "Simplicius" |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Università degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994 |
Pages | 149-172 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana , Romano, Francesco |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/abLTBIirPsa77f4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1495","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1495,"authors_free":[{"id":2593,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2594,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2595,"entry_id":1495,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\"","main_title":{"title":"Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/abLTBIirPsa77f4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1495,"section_of":1494,"pages":"149-172","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1494,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo: atti del II Colloquio internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo, Universit\u00e0 degli studi di Catania, 6-8 ottobre 1994","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Romano_Cardullo_1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PQyCtyKJxkHvx2E","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1494,"pubplace":"Firenze","publisher":"La nuova Italia","series":"Symbolon. Studi e testi di filosofia antica e medievale","volume":"16","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Dunamis in \"Simplicius\""]}
Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 49-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"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}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}
Title | Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 267-286 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Harlfinger, Dieter |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240—1300)1 stammt eine der —wie sich zeigen wird — textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des für die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekanntermaßen unschätzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den Büchern I—IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbständige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als tätige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angehörten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die führenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen — obwohl kein Simplikianer — unter ihnen referieren, über ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wußte, daß ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des „locus fenestratus" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabhängigen Textträger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabhängigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mußte sich aber zur Klärung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift Ε (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und Eä als dislozierte Partien in Ε bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktusänderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte darüber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen jüngeren Manuskript geben. — Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal über den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film — soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 — rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich — der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei für Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken —, meine ersten Eindrücke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorläufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden müßten; hierin ein Plädoyer für eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lJYydaL12PDErlM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"515","_score":null,"_source":{"id":515,"authors_free":[{"id":714,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":5,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","free_first_name":"Dieter","free_last_name":"Harlfinger","norm_person":{"id":5,"first_name":"Dieter","last_name":"Harlfinger","full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107988674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":715,"entry_id":515,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"},"abstract":"In der Geschichte der Simplikios-Philologie spielen Frauen eine besondere Rolle. Aus der Feder der byzantinischen Prinzessin Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240\u20141300)1 stammt eine der \u2014wie sich zeigen wird \u2014 textkritisch relevantesten Handschriften des f\u00fcr die Erforschung der Vorsokratik, der Peripatetik wie auch des Neuplatonismus bekannterma\u00dfen unsch\u00e4tzbaren Kommentars zur aristotelischen Physik des Simplikios. Der zwischen 1261 und 1282 datierende2 Codex Mosquensis Muz. 3649 mit den B\u00fcchern I\u2014IV und dem Beginn von Buch V (desinit mutile3 803, 8 Diels4) ist die of- fensichtlich sehr gewissenhafte5 Abschrift jener Frau, die keinesfalls nur als Schreiberin hervorgetreten ist, sondern insbesondere auch als selbst\u00e4ndige hagiographische Schriftstellerin, als t\u00e4tige Patronin eines Scriptoriums und Buchilluminationsateliers, als Besitzerin einer wohl umfangreichen Bibliothek und nicht zuletzt als bedeutendes Mitglied eines Gelehrtenkreises, dem unter anderen auch Maximos Planudes, Gregorios von Zypern und Manuel Holobolos angeh\u00f6rten. Als sich auf Initiative und unter Leitung von Ilsetraut H a d o t die f\u00fchrenden Simplikios-Forscher unserer T a g e im Herbst 1985 in Paris zu ihrem ersten Fachkolloquium versammelten, durfte der Verfasser dieser Zeilen \u2014 obwohl kein Simplikianer \u2014 unter ihnen referieren, \u00fcber ebenjenen Mosquensis von der H a n d der Rhaulaina. Ilsetraut H a d o t wu\u00dfte, da\u00df ich auf einer Bibliotheksreise des Jahres 1966 die Handschrift eingesehen hatte und sie aufgrund der Bewertung des \u201elocus fenestratus\" am Ende von Buch III p. 518 als neuen unabh\u00e4ngigen Texttr\u00e4ger erkannt zu haben glaubte6. D a s Referat konnte zwar von der Klassifizierung des in der T a t unabh\u00e4ngigen Mosquensis ausgehen, mu\u00dfte sich aber zur Kl\u00e4rung der stemmatischen Aporien, die beim Studium der Dielsschen Praefatio und des apparatus criticus zutage traten, auf die Situation der Handschrift \u0395 (Vorlagenwechsel sowie Eb und E\u00e4 als dislozierte Partien in \u0395 bzw. der Vorlage von E) und der Handschrift D (Duktus\u00e4nderung und Vorlagenwechsel) konzentrieren und konnte dar\u00fcber hinaus auf die interessante Rolle einer weiteren Moskauer Handschrift (Len) aufmerksam machen und Fingerzeige zu dem einen oder anderen j\u00fcngeren Manuskript geben. \u2014 Inzwischen habe ich noch einmal \u00fcber den Codex F nachgedacht und nunmehr fast alle Simplikios-Handschriften im Film \u2014 soweit im Berliner Aristoteles-Archiv vorhanden7 \u2014 rasch eingese hen8. Im folgenden wage ich \u2014 der Veranstalterin des Kolloquiums und Editorin der Akten habe ich dabei f\u00fcr Ermunterung und Geduld zu danken \u2014, meine ersten Eindr\u00fccke zu publizieren. Es sind lediglich vorl\u00e4ufige Ergebnisse, die durch systematische Untersuchungen verifiziert werden m\u00fc\u00dften; hierin ein Pl\u00e4doyer f\u00fcr eine kodikologische Stemmatik. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJYydaL12PDErlM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":5,"full_name":"Harlfinger, Dieter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":515,"section_of":171,"pages":"267-286","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Einige Aspekte der handschriftlichen \u00dcberlieferung des Physikkommentars des Simplikios"]}
Title | Empedocles' Life Cycles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers |
Pages | 331-371 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Pierrēs, Apostolos L. |
Translator(s) |
In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love’s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss—a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved. It was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles’ On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles’ physics. If we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles’ zoogony—his theory of the origins of life—it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been. The following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles’ aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world’s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or ‘roots.’ And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit. A major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles’ concentration on Love’s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife’s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife’s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us. Thus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it. Although it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak. It consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles "also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love." I am not the first to point out that "under Love" and "under Strife" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context. Aristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles’ various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love—i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes. (It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q7rH00eYu70k9Td |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"491","_score":null,"_source":{"id":491,"authors_free":[{"id":672,"entry_id":491,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":673,"entry_id":491,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Life Cycles"},"abstract":"In his poem On Nature, Empedocles described two cycles, a cosmic one and a daimonic one. The cosmic cycle is one of alternating world phases, governed in turn by two divine powers called Love and Strife, each phase explicitly said (B17.1-5, B26.4-6) to contain its own creation of life forms. The daimonic cycle is also governed by Love and Strife. A superior race of daimons, after living in blissful peace during the days of Love\u2019s dominance, committed under the pernicious influence of Strife the cardinal sins of animal slaughter, meat eating, and oath-breaking. For these sins, they have been banished from bliss for ten thousand years, condemned to be reborn as all manner of living things, until their eventual return to bliss\u2014a return which Empedocles, at the beginning of his poem The Purifications, announced he had himself finally achieved.\r\n\r\nIt was once the policy of scholars to keep these two cycles firmly segregated, certainly in different poems and, if possible, in separate and irreconcilable areas of Empedocles' thought: one scientific, the other religious. That old separatist policy was already all but extinct when, in 1998, a newly discovered papyrus containing portions of Empedocles\u2019 On Nature was published by Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, putting the final nail in its coffin. For there, the daimonic cycle was to be found in the immediate context of Empedocles\u2019 physics.\r\n\r\nIf we are to make adequate sense of Empedocles\u2019 zoogony\u2014his theory of the origins of life\u2014it must include the creation of these daimons. Contrary to a common scholarly assumption, the daimons are themselves flesh-and-blood organisms, not mere transmigrating souls or spirits. Indeed, their sin of meat-eating would have been quite hard to perform if they had not been.\r\n\r\nThe following view, and variants of it, are widely held about Empedocles\u2019 aetiology of life forms. He posits two zoogonies: one governed by Love, the other by Strife. The zoogony of Love occurs in a phase of increasing Love, which eventually leads to the world\u2019s conversion into the perfectly homogeneous sphairos. The zoogony of Strife occurs in a phase of increasing Strife, which eventually leads to the total separation of the four elementary bodies or \u2018roots.\u2019 And it is this latter world that Empedocles considered himself to inhabit.\r\n\r\nA major obstacle to this widespread (though by no means unanimous) picture lies in Empedocles\u2019 concentration on Love\u2019s zoogony, to the almost total exclusion of Strife\u2019s. When it comes to the emergence of species, it is again and again what our evidence informs us to be the zoogony of increasing Love that is described, as we shall see amply confirmed in due course. As to Strife\u2019s zoogony, we have nothing but an isolated description in B62 of the first stage of the process by which, under growing Strife, men and women were created. The fragment is further summarized and expanded by Aetius (below, pp. 337-38) and now helpfully supported by a cross-reference in the Strasbourg fragments (d10-14). But despite this additional material, and the probability that trees too were included, there is not so much as a word about the generation, under Strife, of any other animal species known to us.\r\n\r\nThus, if the pattern of survival is to any extent representative of what was in the original poem, the widely favored interpretation that I have sketched faces the anomaly that Empedocles apparently spent far more time accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history (and which can have left no descendants in the world we ourselves inhabit, since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it.\r\n\r\nAlthough it is by no means obvious why Empedocles should have assumed the reverse cosmic process, in the supposed counterworld, to have thrown up the very same life forms that we find in our own world, it is widely held that he did, for whatever reasons, commit himself to this view. But the evidence is, on inspection, vanishingly weak.\r\n\r\nIt consists mainly in Aristotle's assertion (GC II6, 334a5-7; A42) that Empedocles \"also says that the world is in the same state now, under Strife, as previously under Love.\" I am not the first to point out that \"under Love\" and \"under Strife\" need not necessarily mean under increasing Love or increasing Strife, which would in fact be irrelevant to Aristotle's point in the context.\r\n\r\nAristotle is trying to uncover contradictions between Empedocles\u2019 various assertions about the respective motive powers of Love and Strife, and his question here is how, if Love and Strife differ from each other in their motive powers, Empedocles can hold that the world has the same basic arrangement and motions of the four simple bodies in an age dominated by Strife as it previously had in one dominated by Love\u2014i.e., in ages in which, regardless of the actual direction of change, it is Love and Strife, respectively, that govern cosmic processes.\r\n\r\n(It may be that his wording does also carry implications about the current direction of change, but his main point in no way depends on any such implication.) [introduction p. 331-333]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q7rH00eYu70k9Td","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":491,"section_of":317,"pages":"331-371","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Empedocles' Life Cycles"]}
Title | Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers |
Pages | 93-137 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Janko, Richard |
Editor(s) | Pierrēs, Apostolos L. |
Translator(s) |
In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles’ Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy. The first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed. In the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1358","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1358,"authors_free":[{"id":2034,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2391,"entry_id":1358,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":204,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","free_first_name":"Apostolos L.","free_last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":204,"first_name":"Apostolos L.","last_name":"Pierr\u0113s","full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1034968068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction"},"abstract":"In 1992 Alain Martin recognized that papyrus fragments from Panopolis in Upper Egypt, and now in Strasbourg, derive from Empedocles\u2019 Physics. This was a discovery of extraordinary significance. It is universally regarded as the first time that a text of a known Presocratic philosopher has been found in a papyrus, with the exception of parts of the On Truth of Antiphon the sophist. The proof that complete texts of a Presocratic thinker were still in circulation late in the first century C.E. came as a surprise to many, although not to me. In fact, Antiphon and Empedocles are not the only cases in which the text of a fifth-century philosopher survives on a papyrus. I have argued elsewhere that the Derveni Papyrus is also the work of a Presocratic, the physikos Diagoras of Melos, and in my view, that papyrus is even more important than this one. But the identification of the Strasbourg fragments of Empedocles might have been expected to be profoundly important for early Greek philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe first editors of the fragments, Alain Martin and Oliver Primavesi, have presented us with an edition of extraordinarily high quality. However, the papyrus has raised more puzzles than it has solved and thus far has been considered something of a disappointment, because much of it overlaps with the longest extant fragment of Physics Book I, while the rest has seemed very peculiar indeed.\r\n\r\nIn the last part of this paper, I shall offer a new solution to these problems, one which reveals the full significance of the papyrus, renders the philosophical system of Empedocles slightly (but only slightly) less bizarre than it has seemed, and makes the argument of his poetry much more coherent than the papyrus made it appear. In the process, we shall, I believe, be able to reconstruct a passage from his Physics 131 verses long and form a clear impression of how his great philosophical poetry would have sounded. But before I do so, I must remind you of the situation before the discovery of the papyrus and explore the question of whether Empedocles composed one poem or two, and on what topics. [introduction p. 93-94]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mT5sBgIVt1JZCw2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":204,"full_name":"Pierr\u0113s, Apostolos L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1358,"section_of":317,"pages":"93-137","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":317,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Empedoclean Kosmos. Structure, Process and the Question of Cyclicity. structure, process and the question of cyclicity ; proceedings of the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense, July 6th - July 13th, 2003. Papers","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pierres2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"Review by\r\nJenny Bryan, Homerton College, Cambridge: This is a collection of fifteen papers presented at the Symposium Philosophiae Antiquae Tertium Myconense held on Mykonos in July 2003. If this volume is any indication, the meeting must have been a lively affair. It includes work by many of the most influential modern scholars of Empedocles and covers a wide range of topics from the reception of Empedocles to his methodology of argumentation to the details of his cosmology. In addition, Apostolos Pierris provides, in an appendix, a reconstruction of Empedocles\u2019 poem. Several themes emerge from the various papers, most notably the notion of scientific versus religious thinking, the unity of his poem(s?), the importance of the Strasbourg Papyrus, and Aristotle\u2019s role in shaping our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 cycle. As a whole, the book\u2019s most obvious and perhaps most exciting theme is that of \u2018Strife\u2019. This \u2018Strife\u2019 is not, however, Empedocles\u2019 cosmic force (although he does, of course, loom large). Rather it is the kind of discord that seems to arise whenever there is more than one (or maybe even just one) interpreter of Empedocles in the room. This, of course, is no bad thing. This volume represents Pre-Socratic scholarship at its most dynamic.\r\n\r\nIn general, editing seems to have been rather \u2018hands off\u2019. Some papers offer primary texts only in Greek, others include translations. One piece in particular is sprinkled with typos and misspellings that do a disservice to its argumentative force.1 That being said, thought has clearly been given to the grouping of the papers. I particularly benefited from the juxtaposition of those papers explicitly about Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycles, if only because it illustrates the strength of disagreement which this topic continues to inspire. Thus, for example, whilst Primavesi employs the Byzantine scholia as the linchpin of his reconstruction of the cycle, Osborne dismisses the same as \u2018probably worthless as evidence for how Empedocles himself intended his system to work\u2019 (299). Whatever position you hold, or indeed if you hold no position at all, this collection will present you with something to get your teeth into.\r\n\r\nAnthony Kenny\u2019s \u2018Life after Etna: the legend of Empedocles in literary tradition\u2019 offers a whistle-stop tour through accounts of Empedocles\u2019 reputed death on Etna, and then arrives at a more extensive discussion of Matthew Arnold\u2019s \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019. Kenny points out that, at times, Arnold\u2019s Empedocles resembles Lucretius, of whom Arnold was an admirer from childhood. Kenny concludes with the suggestion that, although \u2018Empedocles on Etna\u2019 may be more about Arnold than Empedocles, there is an affinity between the two men: \u2018Empedocles, part magus and part scientist, was, like Arnold, poised between two worlds, one dead, one struggling to be born\u2019 (30).\r\n\r\nGlenn Most offers a rather fascinating discussion of Nietzsche\u2019s Empedocles in his \u2018The stillbirth of tragedy: Nietzsche and Empedocles\u2019. Most reveals the extent to which Empedocles \u2018played quite a significant role in Nietzsche\u2019s intellectual world\u2019 (33). Although Nietzsche made some abortive attempts at a philosophical discussion of Empedocles, he was \u2018far less interested in Empedocles as a thinker than as a human being\u2019 (35). Such was his admiration for Empedocles, whom he viewed as \u2018der reine tragische Mensch\u2019, that, perhaps under the influence of H\u00f6lderlin, Nietzsche formed the (unfulfilled) intention of writing an opera or tragedy about him. Most suggests, in passing, that the tendency for reception of Empedocles to take dramatic form could be due to the influence of Heraclides Pontus (whose dialogue about Empedocles may have formed a source of Diogenes Laertius\u2019 account).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles: two theologies, two projects\u2019, Jean Bollack rails against attempts made, on the basis of the Strasbourg Papyrus, to narrow the gap between Empedocles\u2019 physical and ethical theories. He interprets \u2018The Origins\u2019 and \u2018The Purifications\u2019 as offering two distinct theologies, tailored to suit the purpose, strategy, and audience of each poem. His view is that \u2018[t]he two poems were very probably intended to shed light on one another precisely in their difference\u2019 (47). Bollack also offers, in an appendix, a rereading of fragment B31 \u2018extended by the Strasbourg Papyrus\u2019 (62).\r\n\r\nRene N\u00fcnlist\u2019s \u2018Poetological imagery in Empedocles\u2019 considers the apparent echo of Parmenides B8\u2019s \u03ba\u1f79\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f73\u03c9\u03bd in Empedocles B17\u2019s \u03bb\u1f79\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c4\u1f79\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2. N\u00fcnlist argues that Empedocles\u2019 \u2018poetological imagery\u2019 is more dynamic and potentially more aggressive than that of his predecessor. Empedocles uses path metaphors to \u2018convey the idea of philosophical poetry being a process or a method\u2019 (79). N\u00fcnlist also provides a brief appendix on line 10 of ensemble d of the Strasbourg Papyrus.\r\n\r\nRichard Janko returns to the vexed question of whether Empedocles wrote one poem or two in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 Physica Book 1: a new reconstruction\u2019. Janko presents a masterful summary of the evidence for and against trying to unite Empedocles\u2019 physical and religious verses, admitting his preference for accepting Katharmoi and Physika as two titles for the same work (which discussed both physical theory and ritual purification). On this topic, I benefitted particularly from his discussion of the fragments of Lobon of Argos (another possible source for Diogenes Laertius). This discussion serves as the introduction to Janko\u2019s reconstruction and translation of 131 lines of Book 1 of Empedocles\u2019 Physics, in which he attempts to incorporate some of the ensembles of the Strasbourg Papyrus, which he suggests \u2018at last gives us a clear impression of Empedocles as a poet\u2019 (113).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018On the question of religion and natural philosophy in Empedocles\u2019, Patricia Curd neatly sidesteps the \u2018one poem or two?\u2019 question, formulating instead a distinction between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018esoteric\u2019 and \u2018exoteric\u2019 teachings. She then attempts to establish an essential relation between the two. Curd argues that the exoteric verses, addressed to a plural \u2018you\u2019, offer exhortation and instruction as to how to live a certain kind of life without any \u2018serious teaching\u2019 (145). On the other hand, the esoteric verses addressed to Pausanias offer explanation but lack any direct instruction. Curd\u2019s suggestion is that Empedocles holds that \u2018one must be in the proper state of soul in order to learn and so acquire and hold the most important knowledge\u2019 (153). Further, she argues for reading Empedocles as holding the possession of such natural knowledge as the source of super-natural powers. Curd\u2019s Baconian Empedocles \u2018sees knowledge of the world as bestowing power to control the world\u2019 (153).\r\n\r\nRichard McKirahan\u2019s \u2018Assertion and argument in Empedocles\u2019 cosmology or what did Empedocles learn from Parmenides?\u2019 offers a subtle and stimulating survey of \u2018the devices [Empedocles] uses to gain belief\u2019 (165). McKirahan attempts a rehabilitation of Empedocles against Barnes\u2019s assertion that those reading his cosmology \u2018look in vain for argument, either inductive or deductive.\u20192 Offering persuasive evidence from the fragments, he argues that Empedocles employs both assertion and justification (via both argument and analogy) in his cosmology and that the choice between the two is fairly systematic. McKirahan frames his suggestions within a reconsideration of Empedocles\u2019 debt to Parmenides, arguing that, in places, \u2018Empedocles seems to be adding new Eleatic-style arguments for Eleatic-style theses\u2019 (183).\r\n\r\nApostolos Pierris argues for a \u2018tripartite correspondence\u2019 (189) between Empedoclean religion, philosophy and physics in his \u2018 \u1f4d\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1f77\u1ff3 and \u0394\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7 : Nature and Function of Love and Strife in the Empedoclean system.\u2019 Pierris traces the connection between these three aspects of Empedocles\u2019 thinking via an investigation of the relation between the activity of Love and Strife and the role of the cosmic vortex, reconsidering Aristotle\u2019s critique along the way. He concludes that \u2018in understanding Empedocles\u2019 system of Cosmos both [i.e., metaphysical and physical levels of discourse] are equally needed, for one sheds light on the other\u2019 (213). Further, the physical and metaphysical accounts of the Sphairos and the effects of Love and Strife aid our awareness of our ethical status.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018The topology and dynamics of Empedocles\u2019 cycle\u2019, Daniel Graham attempts a sidelong offensive on the puzzles of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle, armed with a plausible belief that a treatment of the cosmic forces of Love and Strife will shed light on the cycle that they dominate. He offers a neat summary of traditional readings of the location and direction of the action of Love and Strife before presenting a defence of the position developed by O\u2019Brien.3 Graham argues that this so-called \u2018Oscillation Theory\u2019 makes the most sense of Empedocles\u2019 use of military imagery in B35. He also presents a rather illuminating political analogy whereby Empedocles\u2019 Love serves to avoid a kind of cosmic stasis.\r\n\r\nOliver Primavesi\u2019s \u2018The structure of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle: Aristotle and the Byzantine Anonymous\u2019 also has in its sights O\u2019Brien\u2019s reconstruction of the Empedoclean cycle. Primavesi argues against this reconstruction on the grounds that \u2018O\u2019Brien\u2019s hypothesis of symmetrical major alternation of rest and movement is [\u2026] exclusively based on a controversial interpretation of Aristotle, Physics 8, 1\u2032 (257). As an alternative, Primavesi adduces a set of Byzantine scholia which seem to conflict with O\u2019Brien\u2019s alternations and which were \u2018composed in a time when access to a complete work of Empedocles was still open\u2019 (257).4 Primavesi concludes by hypothesising a timetable for the cycle compatible with the scholia.\r\n\r\nAndr\u00e9 Laks considers the relationship between Empedocles\u2019 cosmology and demonology in his \u2018Some thoughts about Empedoclean cosmic and demonic cycles\u2019. He champions a \u2018correspondence model\u2019 of interpretation, arguing that, although the two accounts are distinct, they are also clearly related. Laks suggests that one clear point of relation is the shared cyclicity of the cosmic and demonic stories. Laks focuses his discussion on how each of the cycles starts and argues that \u2018we are entitled to speak of necessity in the case of the cosmic cycle (as Aristotle does) as well as in that of the demonic circle\u2019 and, further, that \u2018although we are entitled to speak of necessity in both cases, we should carefully distinguish between the two cases, and indeed between two kinds of necessity\u2019 (267). Cosmic \u2018necessity\u2019 is absolute, whilst demonic \u2018Necessity\u2019 is hypothetical.\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Sin and moral responsibility in Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle\u2019, Catherine Osborne also gets stuck into the thorny issue of Empedoclean necessity. She rejects the kind of \u2018mechanical and deterministic\u2019 reading of Empedocles\u2019 cycle which, by imposing \u2018fixed periods between regular recurring events [\u2026] leave[s] little room for moral agency to have any significance\u2019 (283). Osborne worries that notions of sin and responsibility will be meaningless in a cosmos where acts of pollution and periods of punishment are predetermined. Using the illuminating parallel of Sophocles\u2019 Oedipus, Osborne argues that a distinction between necessity and prediction should be applied to Empedocles. Empedocles\u2019 daimones are moral agents who act voluntarily in a manner that has been predicted (but which they have promised to avoid) and thus, being responsible for their own predicament, they are punished according to the moral code upon which they have previously agreed. She canvasses a variety of possible readings for B115\u2019s \u2018oracle of necessity\u2019 and concludes that none of them diminishes the responsibility of the daimones or interferes with their free will. Her ultimate conclusion is that Empedocles intended to \u2018set the cosmic events within a moral structure, one in which the fall from unity was the effect of violence in heaven\u2019 (297). Osborne also offers an appendix on the Byzantine sScholia.\r\n\r\nAngelo Tonelli\u2019s \u2018Cosmogony is psychogony is ethics: some thoughts about Empedocles\u2019 fragments 17; 110; 115; 134 DK, and P. Strasb. Gr. Inv. 1665-1666D, VV. 1-9\u2032 is an intriguing attempt to draw parallels between Empedocles\u2019 \u2018initiation poems\u2019 and the \u2018oriental spiritual tradition\u2019. As the title suggests, Tonelli argues for the unity of physics and ethics in what he identifies as Empedocles\u2019 mysticism. He reaches the provocative conclusion that Empedocles\u2019 wise man longs for the triumph of Love even at the expense of his own dissolution qua individual into total unity. \u2018But this\u2019, Tonelli asserts, \u2018is not nihilism: this is psychocosmic mysticism\u2019 (330).\r\n\r\nDavid Sedley urges a radical rethinking of Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony in his \u2018Empedocles\u2019 life cycles\u2019. He argues against the reading that places Love\u2019s zoogony in a phase of increasing Love leading up to the Sphairos. Sedley points out that it would be odd for Empedocles to expend more energy \u2018accounting for the origin of life forms which he could do no more than conjecture to have existed in a remote part of cosmic history [\u2026] (since the sphairos has intervened to render them extinct), than he did on accounting for life as we know it\u2019 (332). He proposes an alternative reading whereby both parts of the double zoogony are offered as an explanation of life as we know it, i.e. \u2018Love\u2019s zoogony was itself located in our world\u2019 (341) and is not separated from us by the Sphairos. Sedley also makes a seductive suggestion regarding the double anthropogony: Love\u2019s anthropogony produces daimones (whom Sedley understands to be creatures of flesh and blood), whilst Strife\u2019s \u2018discordant anthropogony\u2019 (355) results in \u2018wretched race of men and women [\u2026] committed to the divisive sexual politics that Strife imposes upon them\u2019 (347).\r\n\r\nIn \u2018Empedocles\u2019 zoogony and embryology\u2019, Laura Gemelli Marciano too turns her thoughts to the double zoogony, reinstating the Sphairos between the twin acts of creation. She argues that Strife\u2019s zoogony is, in a sense, a continuation of the creative act of Love. For the creatures who owe their origin to Love are, in time, \u2018suffocated\u2019 by the total unity of the Sphairos (but still present within it) but are then, in a sense, reborn via the divisive power of Strife. Strife\u2019s zoogony is dependant on that of Love for \u2018he only frees little by little those beings that Aphrodite had first created and then suffocated\u2019 (381). Gemelli Marciano presents a particularly appealing case for reading Empedocles\u2019 double zoogony as \u2018repeated at a microcosmic level in the mechanism of the conception and development of the embryo\u2019 (383). Both zoogony and embryology describe conception followed by articulation. She closes with some thoughts of how this connection should inform our understanding of Empedocles\u2019 theory of the transmigration of souls.\r\n\r\nI can\u2019t help but feel well-disposed towards a book that includes the declaration \u2018The colour of the cover in this volume corresponds to that of blood, Empedoclean substance of thought\u2019 (407). Had the book\u2019s design been influenced by more prosaic concerns, its sheer wealth of stimulation, provocation and authority ensures that I would nevertheless recommend it to anyone who feels the slightest curiosity about Empedocles, perhaps the most curious of all the Pre-Socratics. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TxAm4obxbTupTry","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":317,"pubplace":"Patras","publisher":"Institut for Philosophical Research","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Empedocles' Physica Book I: A New Reconstruction"]}
Title | Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 560-583 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ebert, Theodor |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Abhandlung über die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: "Daß Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zurück zukommen, für seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles berufen kann, dürfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, der bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenständen charakterisie ren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, Monaden nämlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mißverständnis eines aristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren müssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen Textes. Dieses Mißverständnis ist begünstigt worden durch eine Ar gumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen tour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia‘ einen in gewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht." (p. 582) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"801","_score":null,"_source":{"id":801,"authors_free":[{"id":1183,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":76,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ebert, Theodor","free_first_name":"Theodor","free_last_name":"Ebert","norm_person":{"id":76,"first_name":"Theodor","last_name":"Ebert","full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115820787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2096,"entry_id":801,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz","main_title":{"title":"Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"},"abstract":"Abhandlung \u00fcber die Verwendung des Begriffs 'Entelechie' bei Leibnitz: \"Da\u00df Leibniz sich, um auf unsere eingangs gestellte Frage zur\u00fcck\u00ad\r\nzukommen, f\u00fcr seinen Begriff der Entelechie nicht auf Aristoteles \r\nberufen kann, d\u00fcrfte damit klar geworden sein. Aus einem Begriff, \r\nder bei Aristoteles eine Seinsweise von Gegenst\u00e4nden charakterisie\u00ad\r\nren soll, ist bei Leibniz ein Begriff geworden, der Seiendes selber, \r\nMonaden n\u00e4mlich, charakterisiert. Aber dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis eines \r\naristotelischen Begriffs durch Leibniz, das wir damit diagnostizieren \r\nm\u00fcssen, ist nicht eine simple Fehlinterpretation des aristotelischen \r\nTextes. Dieses Mi\u00dfverst\u00e4ndnis ist beg\u00fcnstigt worden durch eine Ar\u00ad\r\ngumentation des Aristoteles, die den Charakter einer dialektischen \r\ntour de force hat und die von dem Ausdruck ,Entelecheia\u2018 einen in \r\ngewissem Sinn problematischen Gebrauch macht.\" (p. 582)","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3k7VYtKVSM42I1L","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":76,"full_name":"Ebert, Theodor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":801,"section_of":189,"pages":"560-583","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Entelechie und Monade: Bemerkungen zum Gebrauch eines aristotelischen Begriffs bei Leibniz"]}
Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 107-126 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
Translator(s) |
The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"]}
Title | Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 171-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life. Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function. The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover. Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"943","_score":null,"_source":{"id":943,"authors_free":[{"id":1404,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r,","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1405,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William. W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1406,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"},"abstract":"After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus\u2019 doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle\u2019s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.\r\n\r\nHere, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus\u2019 retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus\u2019 Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.\r\n\r\nThe only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration\u2014which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time\u2014the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, refers to Eudemus\u2019 Physics far more often than to Theophrastus\u2019 writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":943,"section_of":287,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"]}
Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 5-28 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"]}
Title | Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 371-396 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nhzKYr8q8E565qL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1579","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1579,"authors_free":[{"id":2759,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2760,"entry_id":1579,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nhzKYr8q8E565qL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1579,"section_of":1577,"pages":"371-396","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Exegesis as Philosophy: Notes on Aristotelian Methods in Neoplatonic Commentary"]}
Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 37-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":["Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"]}
Title | Geist im Exil. Römische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Grenzüberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum |
Pages | 123-160 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hartmann, Udo |
Editor(s) | Schuol, Monika , Hartmann, Udo , Luther, Andreas |
Translator(s) |
Der Exkurs über Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der athenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die kulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, daß es im Römischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis über die Renaissance der Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil idealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes rühmten sowohl Perser als auch Römer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der anderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schließlich ver deutlicht er, daß sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt für Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem Römischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"582","_score":null,"_source":{"id":582,"authors_free":[{"id":825,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2009,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":171,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuol, Monika","free_first_name":"Monika","free_last_name":"Schuol","norm_person":{"id":171,"first_name":"Monika","last_name":"Schuol","full_name":"Schuol, Monika","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124269826","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2010,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":170,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hartmann, Udo","free_first_name":"Udo","free_last_name":"Hartmann","norm_person":{"id":170,"first_name":"Udo","last_name":"Hartmann","full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133793001","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2011,"entry_id":582,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":172,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luther, Andreas ","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Luther","norm_person":{"id":172,"first_name":"Luther","last_name":"Andreas","full_name":"Luther, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/133295524","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden","main_title":{"title":"Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"},"abstract":"Der Exkurs \u00fcber Chosroes, Uranius und die Philosophengesandtschaft der \r\nathenischen Neuplatoniker im Jahr 532 gestattet einen Einblick in die \r\nkulturellen Kontakte zwischen Rom und Persien im 6. Jahrhundert. Er zeigt, \r\nda\u00df es im R\u00f6mischen Reich eine weitverbreitete Kenntnis \u00fcber die Renaissance \r\nder Sasaniden unter Chosroes gab, auch wenn das Bild Persiens zum Teil \r\nidealisiert wurde. Die philosophische Bildung des Chosroes r\u00fchmten sowohl \r\nPerser als auch R\u00f6mer. Der Exkurs demonstriert das breite Interesse an der \r\nanderen Kultur, das sich besonders bei den Heiden fand. Schlie\u00dflich ver\u00ad\r\ndeutlicht er, da\u00df sich Persien im 6. Jahrhundert zunehmend zum Fluchtpunkt \r\nf\u00fcr Heiden und andere Verfolgte aus dem R\u00f6mischen Reich entwickelte. [conclusion, p. 156]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rW1ulVYMSlxdpM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":171,"full_name":"Schuol, Monika","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":170,"full_name":"Hartmann, Udo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":172,"full_name":"Luther, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":582,"section_of":380,"pages":"123-160","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":380,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Grenz\u00fcberschreitungen. Formen des Kontakts zwischen Orient und Okzident im Altertum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuol\/Hartmann\/Luther2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Aus dem Inhalt: J. Wieseh\u00f6fer: Pl\u00f6n, Innsbruck, Berlin \u2026 Der \u201eOrientkreis\u201c oder das Wandern zwischen zwei Welten \u2015 A. Demandt: Alexander im Islam \u2015 E. Baltrusch: Zwischen Autonomie und Repression: Perspektiven und Grenzen einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen j\u00fcdischen Gemeinden und hellenistischem Staat \u2015 A. Gebhardt: Numismatische Beitr\u00e4ge zur sp\u00e4tdomitianischen Ostpolitik \u2013 Vorbereitungen eines Partherkrieges? \u2015 B. Gufler: Orientalische Wurzeln griechischer Gorgo-Darstellungen \u2015 P. Haider: Glaubensvorstellungen in Heliopolis \/ Baalbek in neuer Sicht \u2015 U. Hartmann: Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden \u2015 U. Hartmann \/ A. Luther: M\u00fcnzen des hatrenischen Herrn wrwd (Worod) \u2015 I. Huber: Der Perser-Nomos des Timotheos \u2013 Zwischen Unterhaltungsliteratur und politischer Propaganda \u2015 P. Huyse: Sprachkontakte und Entlehnungen zwischen dem Griechisch\/Lateinischen und dem Mitteliranischen \u2015 H. Klinkott: Die Funktion des Apadana am Beispiel der Gr\u00fcndungsurkunde von Susa \u2015 A. Luther: Zwietracht am Flu\u00df Tanais: Nachrichten \u00fcber das Bosporanische Reich bei Horaz? \u2015 U. Scharrer: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Tadmor im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. \u2015 M. Schuol: Zur \u00dcberlieferung homerischer Epen vor dem Hintergrund altanatolischer Traditionen \u2015 S. Stark: Nomaden und Se\u00dfhafte in Mittel- und Zentralasien: Nomadische Adaptionsstrategien am Fallbeispiel der Altt\u00fcrken. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rscXaDagl5S5H9Q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":380,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Oriens et Occidens. Studien zu antiken Kulturkontakten und ihrem Nachleben","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Geist im Exil. R\u00f6mische Philosophen am Hof der Sasaniden"]}
Title | Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
Pages | 133-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter |
Translator(s) |
Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert. Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne. Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme. In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"]}
Title | Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy |
Pages | 10-32 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Taylor, Richard C. |
Translator(s) |
In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1285","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1285,"authors_free":[{"id":1874,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2341,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2342,"entry_id":1285,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":446,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","free_first_name":"Taylor","free_last_name":"Richard C.","norm_person":{"id":446,"first_name":"Richard C.","last_name":"Taylor","full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139866353","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation","main_title":{"title":"Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation"},"abstract":"In this article, the author discusses the impact of Plotinus, a philosopher of the late ancient period, on the development of philosophical thought, including the creation of falsafa and its influence on philosophy in the Middle Ages. D'Ancona Costa explores Plotinus' Platonism and his incorporation of the doctrines of other philosophers, especially Aristotle, into his teachings. She examines Plotinus' key doctrines, including his understanding of soul, intelligible reality, and the Forms, and how they influenced the development of falsafa. The article also discusses the Neoplatonic model of philosophy as a systematic discipline, covering topics from logic to theology, and how it impacted the study of philosophy in the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the article argues that an understanding of the roots of falsafa in the philosophical thought of Late Antiquity is essential for a proper understanding of the development of philosophy. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0rcOOPNBmsQmGsu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":446,"full_name":"Taylor, Richard C.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1285,"section_of":1309,"pages":"10-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1309,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson_Taylor2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Philosophy written in Arabic and in the Islamic world represents one of the great traditions of Western philosophy. Inspired by Greek philosophical works and the indigenous ideas of Islamic theology, Arabic philosophers from the ninth century onwards put forward ideas of great philosophical and historical importance. This collection of essays, by some of the leading scholars in Arabic philosophy, provides an introduction to the field by way of chapters devoted to individual thinkers (such as al-Farabi, Avicenna and Averroes) or groups, especially during the 'classical' period from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. It also includes chapters on areas of philosophical inquiry across the tradition, such as ethics and metaphysics. Finally, it includes chapters on later Islamic thought, and on the connections between Arabic philosophy and Greek, Jewish, and Latin philosophy. The volume also includes a useful bibliography and a chronology of the most important Arabic thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jcHNB2bxIDAfZNw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1309,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in Translation"]}
Title | Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) |
Pages | 57-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy |
Translator(s) |
On peut difficilement expliquer l’utilisation privilégiée des traductions de Moerbeke dont témoigne l’œuvre de saint Thomas, si on n’admet pas que les deux hommes aient été en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commencé son projet de traduction sans l’initiative ou l’encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confrère (probablement lors d’une rencontre à Viterbe), il a commencé à utiliser ses traductions. Il est même probable qu’il a commandé quelques fois lui-même une traduction. Les données manquent pour pouvoir parler d’une véritable collaboration entre les deux hommes. D’ailleurs, je n’ai pas l’impression que leurs intérêts intellectuels étaient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un témoignage indirect sur la pensée de Guillaume, il semble qu’il avait une préférence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un intérêt particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l’astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalité intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a dédié son traité sur la composition de l’astrolabe) qu’avec le théologien-philosophe Thomas d’Aquin. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confrère. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d’Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examinés ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce témoignage. Mais, comme il arrive fréquemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du héros principal qu’on a tendance à réduire l’activité des contemporains à celle de « collaborateurs » et à minimiser leur apport original. D’où la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L’étude de l’histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont obligés à limiter nettement la portée de ce témoignage. Cette étude a restitué ainsi à Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalité intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirmé également qu’il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition). Thomas a très vite compris l’importance du travail de son confrère. Il en a profité le premier, et c’est probablement grâce à son autorité que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commencé à circuler à Paris, et à partir de là dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3D0JB4FJderQiIl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1388","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1388,"authors_free":[{"id":2147,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2148,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2149,"entry_id":1388,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas","main_title":{"title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"},"abstract":"On peut difficilement expliquer l\u2019utilisation privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e des traductions de Moerbeke dont t\u00e9moigne l\u2019\u0153uvre de saint Thomas, si on n\u2019admet pas que les deux hommes aient \u00e9t\u00e9 en relation directe. Certes, Guillaume a commenc\u00e9 son projet de traduction sans l\u2019initiative ou l\u2019encouragement de Thomas. Mais, quand ce dernier eut pris connaissance du travail de son confr\u00e8re (probablement lors d\u2019une rencontre \u00e0 Viterbe), il a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 utiliser ses traductions. Il est m\u00eame probable qu\u2019il a command\u00e9 quelques fois lui-m\u00eame une traduction. Les donn\u00e9es manquent pour pouvoir parler d\u2019une v\u00e9ritable collaboration entre les deux hommes.\r\n\r\nD\u2019ailleurs, je n\u2019ai pas l\u2019impression que leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats intellectuels \u00e9taient convergents. Si on peut prendre le prologue de la Perspectiva de Witelo comme un t\u00e9moignage indirect sur la pens\u00e9e de Guillaume, il semble qu\u2019il avait une pr\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour une philosophie platonisante, avec un int\u00e9r\u00eat particulier pour la philosophie de la nature et l\u2019astronomie (-logie?). Il avait probablement plus de connaturalit\u00e9 intellectuelle avec son jeune ami et compatriote Henri Bate (qui lui a d\u00e9di\u00e9 son trait\u00e9 sur la composition de l\u2019astrolabe) qu\u2019avec le th\u00e9ologien-philosophe Thomas d\u2019Aquin.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est hors de doute que Thomas a pu profiter largement du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Selon la tradition, Thomas aurait pris des initiatives pour obtenir de nouvelles traductions d\u2019Aristote. Les faits que nous avons examin\u00e9s ne sont pas en contradiction avec ce t\u00e9moignage. Mais, comme il arrive fr\u00e9quemment dans une tradition hagiographique, on accentue tellement les exploits du h\u00e9ros principal qu\u2019on a tendance \u00e0 r\u00e9duire l\u2019activit\u00e9 des contemporains \u00e0 celle de \u00ab collaborateurs \u00bb et \u00e0 minimiser leur apport original.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 la tradition que Guillaume de Moerbeke aurait entrepris tout son travail ad instantiam fratris Thomae. L\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019histoire des traductions et les remarques critiques du F. Gauthier nous ont oblig\u00e9s \u00e0 limiter nettement la port\u00e9e de ce t\u00e9moignage. Cette \u00e9tude a restitu\u00e9 ainsi \u00e0 Moerbeke son autonomie et son originalit\u00e9 intellectuelle. Mais elle a confirm\u00e9 \u00e9galement qu\u2019il y a eu communication scientifique entre les deux dominicains (ce qui est le noyau solide de la tradition).\r\n\r\nThomas a tr\u00e8s vite compris l\u2019importance du travail de son confr\u00e8re. Il en a profit\u00e9 le premier, et c\u2019est probablement gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 son autorit\u00e9 que des traductions de Moerbeke ont commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 circuler \u00e0 Paris, et \u00e0 partir de l\u00e0 dans la culture latine. [conclusion p. 81-82]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3D0JB4FJderQiIl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1388,"section_of":326,"pages":"57-82","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Guillaume de Moerbeke et Saint Thomas"]}
Title | Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown |
Pages | 231-244 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lane Fox, Robin |
Editor(s) | Smith, Andrew |
Translator(s) |
Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the ‘Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the émigrés’ presence. Its participants presented themselves as the ‘Sabians’, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist ‘survival’ has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: ‘it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius’ inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct — route from Athens’. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EVFox3CG77HUjPw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"882","_score":null,"_source":{"id":882,"authors_free":[{"id":1296,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1297,"entry_id":882,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'","main_title":{"title":"Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'"},"abstract":"Since 1986, in a series of wide-ranging studies, M. Tardieu has argued that the \u2018Seven philosophers who went East when the Athens Academy closed settled down at Harran (Carrhae) in northern Syria. The town was a famous bastion of pagan cult (we can usefully contrast its neighbour, perhaps its rival, the stridently Christian Edessa: Green 1992, 44-94; Segal 1970). Furthermore, he believes, a (neo)Platonic seat of philosophical teaching persisted in Harran into the ninth\/tenth centuries ad, being sustained in the wake of the \u00e9migr\u00e9s\u2019 presence. Its participants presented themselves as \r\nthe \u2018Sabians\u2019, the enigmatic group who had been favourably mentioned in the Koran. They then led the renewed prominence of Platonist philosophy in the Abbasid era which is visible to us in the ninth-tenth centuries. This theory of a long Platonist \u2018survival\u2019 has not exactly endeared itself to experts in early Islamic philosophy (e.g. Gutas 1994, 4943; Endress 1991, 133-7; Lameer 1997), but it has been enthusiastically received by one or two writers on late antiquity: P. Chuvin (1990), I. Hadot (1996, who was first attracted by support for her studies of Simplicius, his text and Manichaeism) and P. Athanassiadi (1993, 29) who made it the final flourish of a long article on late pagan philosophy: \u2018it was thanks to the stepping-stone of Harran and to Damascius\u2019 inspired decisiveness [in settling in Harran] that Neoplatonic theology reached Baghdad by a clearly definable - if not direct \u2014 route from Athens\u2019. I wish to restate why it did nothing of the sort. [introduction, p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EVFox3CG77HUjPw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":882,"section_of":266,"pages":"231-244","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Harran, the Sabians and the Late Platonist 'Movers'"]}
Title | Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Spätantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae') |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier |
Pages | 105-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Erler, Michael |
Editor(s) | Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios’ Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert präzise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung für den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als propädeutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zurückhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie — Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Spätantike, 105-22) - auch gestützt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - für Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: "eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulmäßiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium") und gewinnt hieraus für Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine überzeugende Erklärung für das Phänomen, daß stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei Büchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allmählichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis rückt, vermag er verständlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erklären vermochte. In der ersten Werkhälfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zurückgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als "praeparatio platonica" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als propädeutischer Vorübung gibt es aber naturgemäß auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1519,"authors_free":[{"id":2635,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2636,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2637,"entry_id":1519,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')","main_title":{"title":"Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"},"abstract":" Rainer Thiel (Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion, 93-103) analysiert pr\u00e4zise, wie Simplikios in seinem Kommentar zu Epiktets Encheiridion den Wert der stoischen Ethik bestimmt: die Befolgung des dort Gesagten sei Voraussetzung f\u00fcr den eigentlichen philosophischen Aufstieg. Auch hier erscheint hellenistische Philosophie also als prop\u00e4deutische Vorstufe, wobei Simplikios - wie Thiel zu Recht hervorhebt - freilich immer auch die Differenzen zwischen Epiktet und neuplatonischen Auffassungen benennt, was er zu seiner Zeit bereits in einer zur\u00fcckhaltenden, unpolemischen Form tun kann. Von einer anderen Seite her kommt Michael Erler (Philosophie als Therapie \u2014 Hellenistische Philosophie als praeparatio philosophica im Platonismus der Sp\u00e4tantike, 105-22) - auch gest\u00fctzt auf die Forschungen des Ehepaars Hadot - f\u00fcr Simplikios' Kommentar zu demselben Ergebnis (115: \"eine gleichsam verschriftlichte Form schulm\u00e4\u00dfiger Vorbereitung auf das platonische Philosophiestudium\") und gewinnt hieraus f\u00fcr Boethius' Consolatio Philosophiae eine \u00fcberzeugende Erkl\u00e4rung f\u00fcr das Ph\u00e4nomen, da\u00df stoisches Gedankengut in den ersten drei B\u00fcchern eine deutliche Rolle spielt, um danach in den Hintergrund zu treten. Indem Erler Boethius' Schrift in den Kontext platonischer Schulpraxis des allm\u00e4hlichen Aufsteigens zur Erkenntnis r\u00fcckt, vermag er verst\u00e4ndlich zu machen, was der rein literarische Vergleich mit anderer Konsolationsliteratur nicht zu erkl\u00e4ren vermochte. In der ersten Werkh\u00e4lfte geht es darum, den noch ganz im irdischen Leben gefangenen Boethius erst einmal innerweltlich auf die richtige Bahn zu bringen, vor allem, seine Vorstellungen zu reinigen, und hierbei kann auch auf die hellenistische Philosophie zur\u00fcckgegriffen werden, insoweit sie als Vorbereitung auf die im platonischen Sinne eigentliche Philosophie dienen kann, weswegen Erler diese Funktion als \"praeparatio platonica\" bezeichnet. Neben dieser Aneignung hellenistischen philosophischen Gutes als prop\u00e4deutischer Vor\u00fcbung gibt es aber naturgem\u00e4\u00df auch Felder, in denen eine Abgrenzung unvermeidlich ist.","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NeFv0yyCaNc0UCn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1519,"section_of":324,"pages":"105-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Hellenistische Philosophie als 'praeparatio Platonica' in der Sp\u00e4tantike (am Beispiel von Boethius' 'consolatio philosophiae')"]}
Title | Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
Pages | 155-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides’ most celebrated legacy—the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides’ special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.) The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions. To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study. Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it. Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position. In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth. Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo. In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.” Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations. So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways. [conclusion p. 155-158] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2606,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides\u2019 special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity\u2019s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"]}
Title | How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World |
Pages | 49-59 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Van Riel, Gerd |
Editor(s) | Roskam, Geert , Verheyden, Joseph |
Translator(s) |
This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1389,"authors_free":[{"id":2150,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2153,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":345,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roskam, Geert","free_first_name":"Geert","free_last_name":"Roskam","norm_person":{"id":345,"first_name":"Geert","last_name":"Roskam","full_name":"Roskam, Geert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1076800238","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2154,"entry_id":1389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":346,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","free_first_name":"Joseph","free_last_name":"Verheyden","norm_person":{"id":346,"first_name":"Joseph","last_name":"Verheyden","full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138082944","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility","main_title":{"title":"How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility"},"abstract":"This article explores the problem of how perceptibility can arise in a Platonic universe where causes are always immaterial. Dualistic accounts that posit irreducible differences between the res extensa and the res cogitans fail to explain the existence of the material world, which the Neoplatonists endorse as a monistic system where every possible part of the universe is ultimately produced by the First Principle. Proclus provides a subtle answer to this problem by arguing that perceptibility is not something matter has out of itself, but is the effect of a gift of the Demiurge. The ten gifts of the Demiurge are given in the third book of Proclus' Commentary on the Timaeus, with perceptibility being the first gift that determines the lower part of the cosmos, i.e., the corporeal realm. This article argues that perceptibility is not the effect of quantity as such but of the presence of qualities in the bulk that moulds it into the four primordial elements, and it ultimately brings the sensible realm back to intelligible causes. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KrcI8dAakPuz3gf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":345,"full_name":"Roskam, Geert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":346,"full_name":"Verheyden, Joseph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1389,"section_of":1390,"pages":"49-59","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1390,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Light on Creation. Ancient Commentators in Dialogue and Debate on the Origin of the World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Roskam_Verheyden2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The present volume contains the proceedings of an international colloquium held in February 2015 at the Arts Faculty of the KU Leuven that brought together specialists in (late) ancient philosophy and early Christian studies. Contributors were asked to reflect on the reception of two foundational texts dealing with the origin of the world - the third book of Plato's Timaeus and the Genesis account of the creation. The organizers had a double aim: They wished to offer a forum for furthering the dialogue between colleagues working in these respective fields and to do this by studying in a comparative perspective both a crucial topic shared by these traditions and the literary genres through which this topic was developed and transmitted. The two reference texts have been studied in antiquity in a selective way, through citations and essays dealing with specific issues, and in a more systematic way through commentaries. The book is divided into three parts. The first one deals with the so-called Middle- and Neoplatonic tradition. The second part is dedicated to the Christian tradition and contains papers on several of the more important Christian authors who dealt with the Hexaemeron. The third part is entitled \"Some Other Voices\" and deals with authors and movements that combine elements from various traditions. Special attention is given to the nature and dynamics of the often close relationship between the various traditions as envisaged by Jewish-Christian authors and to the remarkable lack of interest from the Neoplatonists for \"the other side\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UyhI8rvumD2a8sx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1390,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["How Can the Perceptible World be Perceptible? Proclus on the Causes of Perceptibility"]}
Title | Iamblichus on Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism |
Pages | 280-292 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Finamore, John F. |
Editor(s) | Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla |
Translator(s) |
Central to lamblichus’ philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad dles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. H um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible W orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re ascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central character in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to its eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus’ philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later Neoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by John Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed light on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the author o f the com m entary to A ristotle’s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 and by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus’ unique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"807","_score":null,"_source":{"id":807,"authors_free":[{"id":1194,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2103,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2104,"entry_id":807,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus on Soul","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus on Soul"},"abstract":"Central to lamblichus\u2019 philosophy is his doctrine o f the soul. The hum an soul strad\u00ad\r\ndles two worlds (the realms o f the Intelligible and o f Nature) and can operate in both. \r\nH um an souls descend to live a life on earth, but their real hom e is in the Intelligible \r\nW orld o f the Forms. Through the help o f the interm ediary divinities, hum an souls re\u00ad\r\nascend to the Intelligible and regain their proper abode. The hum an soul is the central \r\ncharacter in this dram a, and its purification through philosophy and ritual is central to \r\nits eventual ascent.As in other areas, lamblichus\u2019 philosophy o f the soul had a large im pact on later \r\nNeoplatonists. We are lucky enough to have large sections o f his de Anima, preserved by \r\nJohn Stobaeus. His de Mysteriis and fragments from his Platonic com m entaries also shed \r\nlight on Iamblichean psychology, but the m ost im portant fragments are preserved by the \r\nauthor o f the com m entary to A ristotle\u2019s de Anima, who may or may not be Simplicius,2 \r\nand by Priscianus o f Lydia. We will consider all o f these sources as we examine lamblichus\u2019 \r\nunique doctrine of the soul. [p. 280]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IYcaU85hLlbEvz5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":807,"section_of":345,"pages":"280-292","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Iamblichus on Soul"]}
Title | Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 313-326 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dillon, John |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1533","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1533,"authors_free":[{"id":2671,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2672,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"It will be seen that it is Iamblichus\u2019 purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus\u2019 distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1533,"section_of":1419,"pages":"313-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"]}
Title | Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell’Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico |
Pages | 171-188 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Boriello, Maria , Vitale, Angelo Maria |
Translator(s) |
È bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui è la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all’essere, l’uno che non è. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti. Il Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l’aporia dell’uni-molteplicità sia nell’ambito del sensibile che in quello dell’intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in sé le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest’ultimo. Se Aristotele ha risolto l’aporia dell’uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l’unità della sostanza (la quale garantisce l’unità dell’intero in virtù del suo sussistere per sé) e la molteplicità degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per sé), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l’aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all’aporia dell’uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si è visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati. Anche a proposito di quest’ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando è possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che è conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che è solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d’ogni tempo, l’unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187–188] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":403,"authors_free":[{"id":538,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":539,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":248,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boriello, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Boriello","norm_person":{"id":248,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Boriello","full_name":"Boriello, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1148023100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2079,"entry_id":403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","free_first_name":"Angelo Maria","free_last_name":"Vitale","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Angelo Maria","last_name":"Vitale","full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071335952","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio"},"abstract":"\u00c8 bene trarre a questo punto qualche considerazione conclusiva da quanto detto in questo studio, nel quale spero di avere sufficientemente mostrato il peso e il valore che Platone riveste in Simplicio a correzione del modo in cui il rapporto essere-uno viene discusso criticamente da Aristotele in Phys. 1,2. Il contributo teorico di Simplicio pare sostanziarsi sia nel reperimento, nel Parmenide, di quella che secondo lui \u00e8 la nozione eleatica di essere-uno, sia nella precisazione che in tale dialogo si trova anche una nozione di uno superiore all\u2019essere, l\u2019uno che non \u00e8. Tale nozione si ritroverebbe anche nel Sofista sotto forma di critica di Platone alla posizione dei filosofi monisti.\r\n\r\nIl Parmenide e il Sofista sarebbero, quindi, i dialoghi in cui Platone avrebbe risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uni-molteplicit\u00e0 sia nell\u2019ambito del sensibile che in quello dell\u2019intelligibile. Questa rielaborazione di Platone, la quale richiama in maniera implicita la storia delle esegesi neoplatoniche del Parmenide, costituirebbe verosimilmente un indizio della rielaborazione neoplatonica del platonismo a cui Simplicio fornisce il suo contributo, ovvero di un platonismo che (eccezione fatta, forse, per il solo Porfirio), da Plotino in poi, reca in s\u00e9 le tracce precise della svolta meontologica operata da quest\u2019ultimo.\r\n\r\nSe Aristotele ha risolto l\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti sul piano sensibile, pensa Simplicio, facendo coesistere l\u2019unit\u00e0 della sostanza (la quale garantisce l\u2019unit\u00e0 dell\u2019intero in virt\u00f9 del suo sussistere per s\u00e9) e la molteplicit\u00e0 degli accidenti (che invece non sussistono per s\u00e9), Platone ha invece affrontato e risolto l\u2019aporia sotto un duplice profilo, sensibile (Parmenide) e intelligibile (Sofista) a un tempo. Anche a proposito della soluzione all\u2019aporia dell\u2019uno e dei molti, Simplicio tende, dunque, ad analizzare la posizione di Aristotele alla luce di quella di Platone e in subordine a questa, o perlomeno intendendo questa come completiva di quella, analogamente a quanto si \u00e8 visto in riferimento alla querelle sugli Eleati.\r\n\r\nAnche a proposito di quest\u2019ultima Simplicio si mostra lettore attento, quando \u00e8 possibile aderente ad Aristotele, che era considerato da tutti i neoplatonici filosofo di straordinario ingegno, ma senza mai dimenticare che la somma auctoritas spetta senza dubbio a Platone, in linea con un atteggiamento ermeneutico, risalente almeno a Porfirio, che \u00e8 conciliarista ma in un rapporto decisamente asimmetrico, dal momento che \u00e8 solo Platone, per Simplicio come per tutti i platonici d\u2019ogni tempo, l\u2019unico vero princeps philosophorum. [conclusion 187\u2013188]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o07B1GK3GIK7dVY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":248,"full_name":"Boriello, Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":249,"full_name":"Vitale, Angelo Maria","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":403,"section_of":343,"pages":"171-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":343,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"Princeps philosophorum. Platone nell\u2019Occidente tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Vitale2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zhlNQUCxw75dmrB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":343,"pubplace":"Rom","publisher":"Citt\u00e0 Nuova","series":"Progetto Paradigma Medievale, Institutiones. Saggi, ricerche e sintesi di pensiero tardo-antico, medievale e umanistico","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Il Parmenide e il Sofista di Platone riletti da Simplicio"]}
Title | Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1958 |
Published in | Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI |
Pages | 365-442 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
Editor(s) | Nardi, Bruno |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"244","_score":null,"_source":{"id":244,"authors_free":[{"id":313,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2463,"entry_id":244,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":493,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nardi, Bruno","free_first_name":"Bruno","free_last_name":"Nardi","norm_person":{"id":493,"first_name":"Bruno","last_name":"Nardi","full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119470691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI","main_title":{"title":"Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1958","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y3vD9CTRgZXlbJP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":493,"full_name":"Nardi, Bruno","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":244,"pubplace":"Padova","publisher":"Liviana","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":244,"section_of":1582,"pages":"365-442","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1582,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"it","title":"Saggi Sull'Aristotelismo Padovano Dal Secolo XIV Al XVI","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Nardi1958","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1958","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1582,"pubplace":"Florence","publisher":"G. G. Sansone","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Il commento di Simplicio al De Anima nelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI"]}
Title | In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 147-173 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Opsomer, Jan |
Editor(s) | Wilberding, James , Horn, Christoph |
Translator(s) |
Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus—more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls ‘necessity’. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body. The introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings. Prior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichnê, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such. In order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (dieschêmatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle—that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)—and the right isosceles triangle—a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called ‘surfaces’ (epiphaneia) by the commentators. For the sake of convenience, I shall call ‘surfaces’ the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call ‘triangles’. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.) Six triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube). These polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs): The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire. The octahedron that of air. The icosahedron that of water. The hexahedron that of earth. This model of Plato’s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels—one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are ‘even higher principles’ that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1095","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1095,"authors_free":[{"id":1653,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1654,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1655,"entry_id":1095,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties","main_title":{"title":"In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"},"abstract":"Plato introduces what is nowadays called geometric atomism in his Timaeus\u2014more precisely, in the second part of the physical account where he examines the cosmos under the aspect of what he calls \u2018necessity\u2019. This resurfaces again in the final part, which is devoted to what comes about from the cooperation of reason and necessity, where he regularly invokes the triangles and polyhedra in order to explain various biochemical processes of the human body.\r\n\r\nThe introduction of geometric atomism is preceded by the infamously obscure description of the receptacle. This mysterious entity is presented as that in which qualities and shapes appear but also appears to provide the stuff out of which things are made. I will not here enter into the debates about what the receptacle is supposed to be; it suffices to note that the text in some passages may suggest to readers familiar with the later conception of matter that matter is exactly what Plato means. Since this is certainly what Aristotle and, in his wake, all ancient commentators took it to be, we need not for our present purposes consider other readings.\r\n\r\nPrior to the intervention of the demiurge, the precosmic mass already contained traces of the elements (ichn\u00ea, 53b2): it was fiery here, watery there, and so on. Yet it did not have elements with a stable identity. The use of the definite demonstrative pronouns this or that would therefore be inaccurate. So what is fire in the precosmic state is not to be called a this, but rather a such, or that which is always such and such.\r\n\r\nIn order to bring about some stability, the craftsman set out to impart a distinct configuration to the precosmic mass by means of shapes and numbers (diesch\u00eamatisato eidesi te kai arithmois, 53b4-5). Timaeus constructs the elements out of primary triangles. Of all the possible kinds, he selects two basic types: the 30-60-90 scalene triangle\u2014that is, a half-equilateral triangle (Type A)\u2014and the right isosceles triangle\u2014a half-square (Type B). These triangles are combined to form larger shapes, called \u2018surfaces\u2019 (epiphaneia) by the commentators.\r\n\r\nFor the sake of convenience, I shall call \u2018surfaces\u2019 the composite shapes formed out of the basic triangles; the latter I shall just call \u2018triangles\u2019. (One of the surfaces happens to be a triangle too, and it is a matter of dispute among the commentators whether the surfaces are really just two-dimensional planes.)\r\n\r\nSix triangles of Type A can be put together in such a way that they make up an equilateral triangle; four Type B triangles form a square. These surfaces are then combined into stereometric figures (congruent convex regular polyhedra): from the equilateral triangular surfaces can be formed the tetrahedron (that is, a pyramid), the octahedron, and the icosahedron, consisting of four, eight, and twenty faces, respectively; six squares are combined into a hexahedron (that is, a cube).\r\n\r\nThese polyhedra are then assigned to the traditional four elements (henceforth referred to as EWAFs):\r\n\r\n The tetrahedron provides the shape of fire.\r\n The octahedron that of air.\r\n The icosahedron that of water.\r\n The hexahedron that of earth.\r\n\r\nThis model of Plato\u2019s geometric atoms can be completed by adding two more levels\u2014one at the bottom and the other at the top. At one end, we might add the mixtures into which EWAFs enter, and at the foundational level, we must add a level even prior to the basic triangles, since Plato acknowledges that there are \u2018even higher principles\u2019 that are known only to god and privileged humans (53d6-7). [introduction p. 147-148]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q3J2ENiGHB1LmYR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1095,"section_of":299,"pages":"147-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["In defence of geometric atomism: Explaining elemental properties"]}
Title | Infinity and the Creation |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 164-178 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning. Indeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works. A little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word "was" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy. What I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did. Two slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further—indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RDC5FI7QaO4jMjf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"489","_score":null,"_source":{"id":489,"authors_free":[{"id":669,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":670,"entry_id":489,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Infinity and the Creation","main_title":{"title":"Infinity and the Creation"},"abstract":"The arguments of Philoponus on which I want to focus concern the Christian view that the universe had a beginning. But here already I must draw a distinction. For in talking of the universe beginning, I am not talking merely of the present orderly arrangement of the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Many pagans would have accepted that the present arrangement of matter had a beginning. What, with very few exceptions, they all thought absurd was that matter itself should have had a beginning.\r\n\r\nIndeed, Jews and Christians themselves were embarrassed about this doctrine and were by no means unanimous in accepting it. It has been suggested that the oldest references to creation in the Old Testament come in Job, and that there God is envisaged as imposing order on pre-existing matter, not as creating matter itself. It has further been doubted whether there is any clear statement in the Bible of creation out of nothing. The opinion of Philo the Jew, in the first century A.D., is a matter of controversy, but I believe that he takes different sides in different works.\r\n\r\nA little later, Hermogenes and others offered a surprising reason for denying matter a beginning. They pointed to the use of the word \"was\" in the opening of Genesis, where it is said that the earth was without form and void, and they took the use of the past tense to show that earth, or matter, was already in existence when the Creator began work. It is often held, although I am not inclined to agree myself, that Boethius endorsed the Neoplatonist view of a beginningless universe at the end of his Consolation of Philosophy.\r\n\r\nWhat I would acknowledge is that other Christians in these centuries, such as Synesius and Elias, did deny the universe a beginning or end under the influence of Platonism. If we skip to the thirteenth century, we find Thomas Aquinas and his teacher Albert the Great saying that it cannot be established by philosophy one way or the other whether the universe had a beginning. It is only Scripture which reveals that it did.\r\n\r\nTwo slightly younger contemporaries in Paris went a step further\u2014indeed, a step too far. Boethius of Dacia (the Dane, not the sixth-century Roman) and Siger of Brabant maintained that philosophical argument showed the universe to be beginningless, but that nonetheless, reason must bow to revelation. They had to flee Paris in the condemnation of 1277, and there is a tradition that Siger was murdered. [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RDC5FI7QaO4jMjf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":489,"section_of":1383,"pages":"164-178","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Infinity and the Creation"]}
Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 175-206 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","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}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
Title | Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 1-40 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UotikAt6Giet2tb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"796","_score":null,"_source":{"id":796,"authors_free":[{"id":1174,"entry_id":796,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus"},"abstract":"Since 1987, when the first edition of this book appeared, there have been new findings both about Philoponus' thought and about his milieu. In this Introduction to the second edition, I will start with the milieu. There has been a major archaeological discovery, nothing less than the lecture rooms of the Alexandrian school. It was announced in 2004 that the Polish archaeological team under Grzegorz Majcherek had identified the lecture rooms of the 6th-century Alexandrian school, surprisingly well preserved. Although the first few rooms had been excavated 25 years earlier, the identification had become possible only now. By 2008, 20 rooms had been excavated. 20 is the number of rooms reported by a 12th-century source writing in Arabic, Abd el-Latif, but there may be more. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UotikAt6Giet2tb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":796,"section_of":184,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Introduction to the Second Edition: New findings on Philoponus"]}
Title | Ioannes Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1917 |
Published in | Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neunter Band Hyaia — Iugum |
Pages | 1768-1795 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gudeman, Alfred |
Editor(s) | Kroll, Wilhelm |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jn8LgJK5DW0lutG |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1525","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1525,"authors_free":[{"id":2650,"entry_id":1525,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":566,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","free_first_name":"Alfred","free_last_name":"Gudeman","norm_person":{"id":566,"first_name":"Alfred","last_name":"Gudeman","full_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102810761","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2651,"entry_id":1525,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":300,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Kroll","norm_person":{"id":300,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Kroll","full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116552581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ioannes Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Ioannes Philoponus"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1917","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jn8LgJK5DW0lutG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":566,"full_name":"Gudeman, Alfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":300,"full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1525,"section_of":1526,"pages":"1768-1795","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1526,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"de","title":"Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neunter Band Hyaia \u2014 Iugum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1916","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DT7g7hn04BY8jPG","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1526,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Metzler","series":"Paulys Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Ioannes Philoponus"]}
Title | John Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 1-40 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension. Philoponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FDyWUVJUOYpvtvb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":488,"authors_free":[{"id":667,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":668,"entry_id":488,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus"},"abstract":"This chapter delves into the life and intellectual contributions of John Philoponus, a pivotal figure bridging Neoplatonism and Christianity. It explores his relationship with Ammonius and examines how his Christian faith influenced his philosophical and scientific endeavors. The text covers Philoponus' critique of the Aristotelian worldview, focusing on key topics such as the creation of the universe, the impetus theory of dynamics, and the concept of velocity in a vacuum. It also addresses his innovative ideas about vacuum and space, his challenges to Aristotle's notions of natural place, and his interpretation of matter as extension.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus is recognized for disrupting Aristotle's categorical framework, rejecting the fifth element, and presenting novel theories about the directionality of light. The chapter reflects on his attacks on Aristotle in retrospect, highlighting the interplay between his scientific theories and Christian doctrines, including Christ, the Trinity, resurrection, and the soul. Additionally, the chapter examines his influence on later thought, tracing his intellectual antecedents and the chronology of his writings. [Derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FDyWUVJUOYpvtvb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":488,"section_of":1383,"pages":"1-40","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["John Philoponus"]}
Title | John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 393-412 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work. To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1418,"authors_free":[{"id":2219,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2221,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"},"abstract":"Philoponus\u2019 denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.\r\n\r\nTo conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius\u2019 commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus\u2019 edition of Ammonius\u2019 lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius\u2019 lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1418,"section_of":1419,"pages":"393-412","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/thdAvlIvWl4EdKB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"]}
Title | Kathēgemōn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition |
Pages | 201-226 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Christian Tornau |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
After Proclus, the formula ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,⁸¹ and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius’ commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus’ praise for Syrianus,⁸² but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (ἀπὸ φωνῆς), ho hēmeteros kathēgemōn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.⁸³ In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed. So far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kathēgemōn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.⁸⁴ The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter’s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle’s deviation from his kathēgemōn Plato.⁸⁵ The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an ‘emulator’ of Plato (ζηλώσας, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),⁸⁶ but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays ‘how much he lags behind the guidance (ὑφήγησις) of his kathēgemōn.’⁸⁷ Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kathēgemōn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato’s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was ‘endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kathēgemōn [sc. Plato]’ and was himself able to offer theological guidance (ὑφήγησις) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.⁸⁸ Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism. Simplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,⁸⁹ takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus’ verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle ‘is not in disharmony with his kathēgemōn,’⁹⁰ implying—and sometimes stating—that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (κίνησις) and change (μεταβολή) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).⁹¹ Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle’s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato’s thought: It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (ἐννοίας) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25–26 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)⁹² When he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of ‘willing’ or ‘striving’ in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue: In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20–22 Diels.)⁹³ On this, too, Aristotle wants (βούλεται) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)⁹⁴ Simplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus’ own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius’ use of kathēgemōn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus’, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle’s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism. Concerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kathēgemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius’ lectures or written treatises.⁹⁵ However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria: My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .’ I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23–60.1 Diels.)⁹⁶ Simplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.⁹⁷ We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument. Ultimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus’ era. [conclusion p. 222-226] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/unoSzgVP7XRBEus |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1605","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1605,"authors_free":[{"id":2810,"entry_id":1605,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Christian Tornau","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Tornau","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"After Proclus, the formula ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn remains common among the Neoplatonists, especially in the Athenian school, but it rarely seems to carry the full metaphysical weight it has in Proclus. Ammonius and Damascius mention their teachers (Proclus and Isidorus, respectively) with respect and gratitude,\u2078\u00b9 and the hymnic diction of the opening lines of Ammonius\u2019 commentary on the De Interpretatione is reminiscent of Proclus\u2019 praise for Syrianus,\u2078\u00b2 but neither of them links this to any discernible ethical or metaphysical ideas. In the commentaries by Damascius that were taken down by his pupils at his lectures (\u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2), ho h\u0113meteros kath\u0113gem\u014dn is nothing but a polite formula for the professor who is holding the course, i.e., Damascius himself.\u2078\u00b3 In Simplicius, however, there are some passages concerning the issues of authority and orality that are easier to understand if the Proclan model is, at least to some extent, presupposed.\r\n\r\nSo far, we have only investigated the ideal relationship between a kath\u0113gem\u014dn and his pupil(s), as embodied, for example, by Parmenides and Zeno (and Socrates) or by Proclus and Syrianus (and Plato). But obviously, there are also cases in which philosophical, even Platonic, teaching fails. This does not come as a surprise in the case of Epicurus and Democritus, neither of whom has the philosophical standing that is necessary for a successful return to true being.\u2078\u2074 The case of Aristotle is more complex. As is well known, Proclus does believe in the general harmony of Plato and Aristotle but is very critical, especially of the latter\u2019s natural philosophy, which he rejects as Aristotle\u2019s deviation from his kath\u0113gem\u014dn Plato.\u2078\u2075 The way in which he formulates this criticism is telling. Proclus enlists Aristotle as an \u2018emulator\u2019 of Plato (\u03b6\u03b7\u03bb\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2, a phrase elsewhere applied to Syrianus),\u2078\u2076 but, he adds, the fact that in explaining nature, Aristotle usually does not go beyond matter and immanent form betrays \u2018how much he lags behind the guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn.\u2019\u2078\u2077 Aristotle is blamed for his lack of philosophical allegiance, not because he sometimes contradicts Plato, but because he was unable or unwilling to submit to the quasi-divine guidance of his kath\u0113gem\u014dn, which resulted in his failure to return to the intelligible and in his developing a metaphysics that falls short of the ontological level that Plato had reached. Conversely, as long as he philosophizes on Plato\u2019s ontological level, a thinker qualifies as a true Platonist even if on some points he deviates from him: according to Proclus, Plotinus was \u2018endowed with a nature similar to that of his own kath\u0113gem\u014dn [sc. Plato]\u2019 and was himself able to offer theological guidance (\u1f51\u03c6\u03ae\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) to others, even though Proclus rejects his theory of the undescended soul.\u2078\u2078 Neoplatonic orthodoxy, if we may call it thus, seems to admit a certain pluralism.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, who, of course, went further than Proclus and most other Platonists in claiming the agreement of Plato and Aristotle,\u2078\u2079 takes up this basic view while at the same time opposing Proclus\u2019 verdict (just paraphrased). In his commentary on the Physics, he repeatedly says that Aristotle \u2018is not in disharmony with his kath\u0113gem\u014dn,\u2019\u2079\u2070 implying\u2014and sometimes stating\u2014that philosophical allegiance is not a matter of verbal agreement. This occurs especially in discussions of points on which Aristotle was notoriously critical of Plato, e.g., whether movement (\u03ba\u1f77\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) and change (\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f75) were to be distinguished or were one and the same thing (which has some bearing on the difficult issue of the movement of the soul, on which Aristotle explicitly contradicted Plato).\u2079\u00b9 Naturally, Simplicius does not deny the difference in terminology, but he does deny that it shows Aristotle\u2019s inability or unwillingness to reach the more sublime regions of Plato\u2019s thought:\r\n\r\n It is important to note that here again Aristotle has expressed the same ideas (\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) as his teacher with different words. (Simp. in Phys. 1336.25\u201326 Diels, introducing a long comparison of the accounts of the First Principle in Physics 8 and the Timaeus.)\u2079\u00b2\r\n\r\nWhen he reports especially impressive cases of the agreement of the two philosophers, Simplicius likes to employ the vocabulary of \u2018willing\u2019 or \u2018striving\u2019 in order to highlight the ethical aspect of the issue:\r\n\r\n In the Categories, Aristotle emulated even this terminology of his teacher, that he calls all natural changes movements. (Simp. in Phys. 824.20\u201322 Diels.)\u2079\u00b3\r\n On this, too, Aristotle wants (\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) to be in harmony with his teacher. (Simp. in Phys. 1267.19 Diels.)\u2079\u2074\r\n\r\nSimplicius agrees with Proclus that Aristotle was an emulator of Plato; against Proclus, he insists that this emulation was successful, and he seems to do so based on Proclus\u2019 own assumption that philosophical allegiance is primarily a moral decision. Simplicius\u2019 use of kath\u0113gem\u014dn may not have the philosophical depth of Proclus\u2019, but it is, as it were, metaphysically pregnant and strengthens Aristotle\u2019s authority as a Platonist while helping to ward off the charge of anti-Platonism.\r\n\r\nConcerning orality, we have seen that for Proclus, the inspired texts of Plato and others have their full impact on the philosophical learner only if they are unfolded to them personally by an experienced exegete. For this reason, in the prologue of the Parmenides commentary, Syrianus, not Plato, is the savior of humankind, and in the commentary on the Republic, Proclus himself re-transfers a written text by Syrianus into orality. Later Neoplatonists remain aware of the importance of personal instruction; several of them record oral discussions with their kath\u0113gemones. Simplicius is no exception, though he more often cites Ammonius\u2019 lectures or written treatises.\u2079\u2075 However, there seems to be an important difference. Commenting on the problem of squaring the circle, Simplicius recalls a scene between himself and Ammonius in Alexandria:\r\n\r\n My teacher Ammonius used to say that it was perhaps not necessary that, if this [sc. a square of the same size as a circle] had been found in the case of numbers, it should also be found in the case of magnitudes. For the line and the circumference were magnitudes of a different kind. \u2018It is,\u2019 he said, \u2018no wonder that a circle of the same size as a polygon has not been found, seeing that we find this in the case of angles too. . . .\u2019 I replied to my teacher that if the lune over the side of a square could be squared (and this was proven beyond doubt) and if the lune, which consisted of circumferences, was of the same kind as the circle, there was, on this assumption, no reason why the circle could not be squared. (Simp. in Phys. 59.23\u201360.1 Diels.)\u2079\u2076\r\n\r\nSimplicius surely tells this story not just to voice his disagreement with Ammonius but also to commemorate him honorifically, as he usually does.\u2079\u2077 We should therefore read the passage as an example of successful philosophical didactics. As an experienced teacher and versed dialectician, Ammonius challenges his promising pupil with an agnostic argument on a thorny mathematical problem, and Simplicius meets the challenge and succeeds in developing a convincing counterargument.\r\n\r\nUltimately, Simplicius presents philosophy as having become much more bookish in his time than it had ever been in Proclus\u2019 era. [conclusion p. 222-226]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1605,"section_of":1474,"pages":"201-226","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1474,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Authority and authoritative texts in the Platonist tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler-He\u00dfler-Petrucci_2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/unoSzgVP7XRBEus","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1474,"pubplace":" Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Kath\u0113gem\u014dn: The Importance of the Personal Teacher in Proclus and Later Neoplatonism"]}
Title | L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques réflexions |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l’Antiquité. Poésie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie |
Pages | 51-84 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Louguet, Claire |
Editor(s) | Rousseau, Phillipe |
Translator(s) |
Le système d’Anaxagore est un labyrinthe où l’on se perd et dont on peine à trouver l’issue, une énigme dont on ne peut pourtant s’empêcher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la quête de tout interprète franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais existé ? Était-elle exposée par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute à jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-même les contradictions internes qu’ont décelées ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-même ? Lorsqu’on interprète des textes (et à plus forte raison lorsqu’ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une cohérence qui rende intelligible l’ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des éléments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l’aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui légitime une telle démarche. Il y a autant d’interprétations et d’hypothèses que d’interprètes, et, dans le cas d’Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu’on désespère d’en trouver un jour l’issue. Dans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s’amplifier, dans cette quête effrénée de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite à faire une pause, à nous éloigner du vacarme et à nous taire, pour écouter et réfléchir. Car ce qui distingue la démarche de Lanza, c’est justement qu’elle engage le lecteur à un travail réflexif, à un retour sur son propre travail d’interprète. Si donc les thèses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interprétations, l’important en réalité n’est pas là (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu’il se situe en dehors, car son geste dépasse le cadre général des interprétations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estimé sans doute qu’il reste en deçà ; je dirai pour ma part qu’il va au-delà et qu’il nous emmène au-delà du cadre balisé. Tout dépend de ce que l’on cherche : le Socrate du Théétète ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer considérablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la démarche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but véritable. Ce que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interprétation, les moyens de la construire de la façon la moins naïve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les résultats qu’il obtient en termes de compréhension du système d’Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypothèses qu’il propose, ce genre de considération suffit à rendre son travail original et utile aujourd’hui encore. Si son travail est daté, c’est « par accident » : parce qu’il se situe dans les années 1960, à une époque où les interprétations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) étaient orientées vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des éléments d’Anaxagore. Bien que l’objectif de Lanza ne soit pas polémique, il est évident qu’il a construit sa propre interprétation en opposition à ce genre de reconstructions – cela apparaît comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires. Dans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez datées, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d’attribuer à ces interprètes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l’atomisme. En revanche, j’insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu’ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidité tient au fait que Lanza évolue dans la sphère du vraisemblable et qu’il se montre sensible au fait que son objet possède une unité. Je présenterai d’abord les éléments remarquables de l’interprétation de Lanza, après quoi j’exposerai un point épineux de la réception ancienne et moderne (la question des homéomères), qui a particulièrement intéressé Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une thèse forte qu’il convient d’examiner. [introduction p. 51-52] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1373","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1373,"authors_free":[{"id":2069,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":238,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Louguet, Claire","free_first_name":"Claire","free_last_name":"Louguet","norm_person":{"id":238,"first_name":"Claire","last_name":"Louguet","full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2389,"entry_id":1373,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":457,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rousseau, Phillipe","free_first_name":"Phillipe","free_last_name":"Rousseau","norm_person":{"id":457,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Rousseau","full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1038717787","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions","main_title":{"title":"L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions"},"abstract":"Le syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore est un labyrinthe o\u00f9 l\u2019on se perd et dont on peine \u00e0 trouver l\u2019issue, une \u00e9nigme dont on ne peut pourtant s\u2019emp\u00eacher de chercher la solution. Mais cette solution, objet de la qu\u00eate de tout interpr\u00e8te franchissant le seuil du labyrinthe, a-t-elle jamais exist\u00e9 ? \u00c9tait-elle expos\u00e9e par Anaxagore dans les textes qui ont disparu sans doute \u00e0 jamais ? Anaxagore voyait-il lui-m\u00eame les contradictions internes qu\u2019ont d\u00e9cel\u00e9es ses critiques ? Si oui, les assumait-il lui-m\u00eame ?\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019on interpr\u00e8te des textes (et \u00e0 plus forte raison lorsqu\u2019ils sont fragmentaires), on recherche une coh\u00e9rence qui rende intelligible l\u2019ensemble. En ce qui concerne Anaxagore, on le fait le plus souvent en introduisant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments que les textes ne mentionnent pas, trouvant sans doute dans l\u2019aspect fragmentaire du corpus une raison qui l\u00e9gitime une telle d\u00e9marche. Il y a autant d\u2019interpr\u00e9tations et d\u2019hypoth\u00e8ses que d\u2019interpr\u00e8tes, et, dans le cas d\u2019Anaxagore, cette multitude de voix discordantes rend plus complexe encore la structure du labyrinthe, si bien qu\u2019on d\u00e9sesp\u00e8re d\u2019en trouver un jour l\u2019issue.\r\n\r\nDans ce bruissement de voix multiples qui ne cesse de s\u2019amplifier, dans cette qu\u00eate effr\u00e9n\u00e9e de la solution, la lecture des travaux de Lanza nous invite \u00e0 faire une pause, \u00e0 nous \u00e9loigner du vacarme et \u00e0 nous taire, pour \u00e9couter et r\u00e9fl\u00e9chir. Car ce qui distingue la d\u00e9marche de Lanza, c\u2019est justement qu\u2019elle engage le lecteur \u00e0 un travail r\u00e9flexif, \u00e0 un retour sur son propre travail d\u2019interpr\u00e8te.\r\n\r\nSi donc les th\u00e8ses de Lanza peuvent trouver leur place dans une doxographie des interpr\u00e9tations, l\u2019important en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 n\u2019est pas l\u00e0 (ou pas seulement), mais dans le fait qu\u2019il se situe en dehors, car son geste d\u00e9passe le cadre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des interpr\u00e9tations : il se situe hors champ, pour ainsi dire. Certains estimeront ou ont estim\u00e9 sans doute qu\u2019il reste en de\u00e7\u00e0 ; je dirai pour ma part qu\u2019il va au-del\u00e0 et qu\u2019il nous emm\u00e8ne au-del\u00e0 du cadre balis\u00e9. Tout d\u00e9pend de ce que l\u2019on cherche : le Socrate du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te ne parvient pas au but officiel ou explicite du dialogue, mais il fait avancer consid\u00e9rablement ses interlocuteurs (et les lecteurs) dans la d\u00e9marche de la recherche, et ce faisant, il atteint le but v\u00e9ritable.\r\n\r\nCe que Lanza donne au lecteur est moins un contenu que les moyens de se faire sa propre interpr\u00e9tation, les moyens de la construire de la fa\u00e7on la moins na\u00efve et la plus consciente possible. Quels que soient les r\u00e9sultats qu\u2019il obtient en termes de compr\u00e9hension du syst\u00e8me d\u2019Anaxagore, quelles que soient les hypoth\u00e8ses qu\u2019il propose, ce genre de consid\u00e9ration suffit \u00e0 rendre son travail original et utile aujourd\u2019hui encore.\r\n\r\nSi son travail est dat\u00e9, c\u2019est \u00ab par accident \u00bb : parce qu\u2019il se situe dans les ann\u00e9es 1960, \u00e0 une \u00e9poque o\u00f9 les interpr\u00e9tations majeures (anglo-saxonnes pour la plupart) \u00e9taient orient\u00e9es vers une conception particulariste (ou corpusculariste) des \u00e9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Anaxagore. Bien que l\u2019objectif de Lanza ne soit pas pol\u00e9mique, il est \u00e9vident qu\u2019il a construit sa propre interpr\u00e9tation en opposition \u00e0 ce genre de reconstructions \u2013 cela appara\u00eet comme un leitmotiv dans ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nDans ce qui suit, je ne prendrai pas position sur ces questions passionnantes mais assez dat\u00e9es, ni sur la question de savoir si Lanza a raison d\u2019attribuer \u00e0 ces interpr\u00e8tes des confusions entre Anaxagore et l\u2019atomisme. En revanche, j\u2019insisterai sur les points forts de son travail, qui ont ceci de remarquable qu\u2019ils ne sont pas atteints, eux, par la contingence ni soumis aux vicissitudes du temps. Comme nous le verrons, cette solidit\u00e9 tient au fait que Lanza \u00e9volue dans la sph\u00e8re du vraisemblable et qu\u2019il se montre sensible au fait que son objet poss\u00e8de une unit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nJe pr\u00e9senterai d\u2019abord les \u00e9l\u00e9ments remarquables de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Lanza, apr\u00e8s quoi j\u2019exposerai un point \u00e9pineux de la r\u00e9ception ancienne et moderne (la question des hom\u00e9om\u00e8res), qui a particuli\u00e8rement int\u00e9ress\u00e9 Lanza et au sujet duquel il a une th\u00e8se forte qu\u2019il convient d\u2019examiner. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8fCGIzpqB6IdoMr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":238,"full_name":"Louguet, Claire ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":457,"full_name":"Rousseau, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1373,"section_of":340,"pages":"51-84","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":340,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diego Lanza, lecteur des oeuvres de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. Po\u00e9sie, philosophie, histoire de la philologie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rousseau2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"Figure critique majeure des \u00e9tudes de philologie classique en Italie, Diego Lanza a renouvel\u00e9 en profondeur l'approche des \u0153uvres de la litt\u00e9rature grecque ancienne. Ses travaux conjuguent un int\u00e9r\u00eat, partiellement h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la philologie historique, pour l'histoire de la tradition, avec une analyse, inspir\u00e9e notamment de Marx et de Gramsci, de la fonction des textes anciens comme instruments de m\u00e9diation id\u00e9ologique, interrogeant ainsi conjointement le pass\u00e9 et le pr\u00e9sent des appropriations culturelles. Les probl\u00e9matiques de l'anthropologie occupent une place privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e dans sa lecture de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, mais leur espace de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence n\u2019est pas celui de l\u2019anthropologie structurale, de la psychologie historique ou de la critique symbolique de l\u2019\u00e9cole fran\u00e7aise. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t l\u2019\u00e9tude du folklore, o\u00f9 l\u2019analyse de la culture populaire est orient\u00e9e par un int\u00e9r\u00eat sp\u00e9cifique pour les antagonismes qui la structurent. Les essais r\u00e9unis dans ce volume reviennent sur les objets auxquels Diego Lanza s\u2019est int\u00e9ress\u00e9 \u2013 po\u00e9sie archa\u00efque (Hom\u00e8re), th\u00e9\u00e2tre classique (Euripide, Aristophane), philosophie \u00ab pr\u00e9socratique \u00bb et classique (Anaxagore, Aristote), histoire de la philologie \u2013 et dans la diversit\u00e9 de leurs points de vue, esquissent un bilan des aspects les plus significatifs d\u2019une \u0153uvre scientifique originale et stimulante.\r\n[author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LY1f6edLjdTkqq3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":340,"pubplace":"Lille","publisher":"Presses universitaires du Septentrion","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'Anaxagore de Diego Lanza : quelques r\u00e9flexions"]}
Title | L'arrière-plan néoplatonicien de l'École d'Athènes de Raphaël |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Antiquités imaginaires. La référence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance à nos jours |
Pages | 143-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Rinuy, Paul-Louis , Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
Il est néanmoins permis d’insister, comme nous l'avons déjà dit, sur la tonalité manifestement néoplatonicienne de l’œuvre. Tout d’abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l’allégorie de la Philosophie et l’École d’Athènes. Il est vrai que l’allégorie est construite sur l’idée d’une dualité des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties égales. La légende, «Causarum cognitio», est certainement inspirée par la légende de l’allégorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le Pérugin) dans le Cambio de Pérouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a été rédigé par le responsable du programme – d’esprit «ficinien» –, l’érudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme «modeste auteur de la Cronaca della città di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503», mais aussi comme aristotélicien thomiste, helléniste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs. Maturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adhésion à l'idée d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chrétien, une idée qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On relève notamment, dans la légende de la Prudence de Pérouse, l’expression «...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...». Et comme Raphaël avait travaillé avec le Pérugin, en compagnie de qui il était venu à Rome, le lien entre «scrutari... causas latentes» et «causarum cognitio» est tout à fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'éthique, de même que l'Artémis d’Éphèse représente la Nature avec ses secrets – l’objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie –, et n’a guère de rapport avec l'éthique. La dissymétrie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le maître est, comme il se doit, à la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrastée qu’elle ne peut signifier qu'une différence de domaine : les Idées et le Démiurge sont le domaine d'élection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain – le plus grand bonheur qui puisse échoir à l’homme – est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste généreux, qui s’adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque. Comment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un écho précis des conceptions néoplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des thèmes que nous avons maintes fois rencontrés et que Raphaël – ou le responsable du programme iconographique – a puisés dans la culture néoplatonicienne de l'époque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole : L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales à partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition. La supériorité de la philosophie de Platon (les «grands mystères» néoplatoniciens) sur celle d’Aristote (les «petits mystères»), qui est la propédeutique à la philosophie de Platon et qui succède elle-même au cycle des sept Arts Libéraux, dont on a voulu déceler la représentation parmi le savant désordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales. La différence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont élevés les deux penseurs : Platon a décrit le Monde non pas de manière immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes – les Idées et le Démiurge. Il étudie les réalités naturelles elles-mêmes en considérant leur relation à celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-à-dire les réalités intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L’étude du Timée, œuvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen Âge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquité du second cycle du cursus néoplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon. Quant à Aristote, il offre une pensée du bonheur qui doit permettre à l’homme, en menant la vie théorétique – qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes –, de «s’immortaliser autant qu’il est possible». Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu’à la date où Raphaël conçut l’École d’Athènes, il n’existait pas de traduction italienne en édition séparée du Timée ni des Éthiques d’Aristote. On peut ajouter que l’édition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait être publiée qu’en 1513 à Venise (édition aldine), et que Platon était lu à l’époque dans la célèbre traduction latine de Ficin imprimée en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l’édition princeps des œuvres d’Aristote en grec avait été donnée peu d'années auparavant à Venise par Alde Manuce. Précisément, la Préface grecque d’Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d’Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un éloge de la supériorité de la philosophie péripatéticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu après, en 1499, paraissait à Venise également l’édition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Catégories, œuvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commodément lire le développement que nous avons étudié sur la finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote. Ces deux remarques bibliographiques ne prétendent en aucun cas assigner une source littéraire à un célèbre détail iconographique. La leçon de méthode et de prudence d’E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypothèse, impossible à prouver en toute rigueur, à tant d’autres. Ce que l’on peut souligner en revanche, si l’on veut bien admettre que, dans une période d’effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publiés étaient lus et que les idées circulaient, c’est un écho troublant entre le thème de la Préface d’Alexandre Bondini (1495), le développement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalité de la philosophie d’Aristote (imprimé en 1499), et le principe «symphonique» néoplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l’École d’Athènes (1509–1511). [conclusion p. 154-158] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"682","_score":null,"_source":{"id":682,"authors_free":[{"id":1011,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1012,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2022,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":186,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis","free_first_name":"Paul-Louis","free_last_name":"Rinuy","norm_person":{"id":186,"first_name":"Paul-Louis ","last_name":"Rinuy","full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14126795X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2392,"entry_id":682,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":187,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Alexandre","free_last_name":"Farnoux","norm_person":{"id":187,"first_name":"Alexandre ","last_name":"Farnoux","full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/188370528","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl","main_title":{"title":"L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"},"abstract":"Il est n\u00e9anmoins permis d\u2019insister, comme nous l'avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit, sur la tonalit\u00e9 manifestement n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l\u2019\u0153uvre. Tout d\u2019abord, on peut souligner une distorsion entre l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Philosophie et l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes. Il est vrai que l\u2019all\u00e9gorie est construite sur l\u2019id\u00e9e d\u2019une dualit\u00e9 des parties de la Philosophie, qui sont donc des parties \u00e9gales. La l\u00e9gende, \u00abCausarum cognitio\u00bb, est certainement inspir\u00e9e par la l\u00e9gende de l\u2019all\u00e9gorie de la Prudence, peinte vers 1500 par Pietro Vannucci (le P\u00e9rugin) dans le Cambio de P\u00e9rouse. Le texte qui accompagne la Prudence a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 par le responsable du programme \u2013 d\u2019esprit \u00abficinien\u00bb \u2013, l\u2019\u00e9rudit Francesco Maturanzio, bien connu non seulement comme \u00abmodeste auteur de la Cronaca della citt\u00e0 di Perugia dal 1492 al 1503\u00bb, mais aussi comme aristot\u00e9licien thomiste, hell\u00e9niste et collectionneur de manuscrits grecs.\r\n\r\nMaturanzio exprimait dans ce programme son adh\u00e9sion \u00e0 l'id\u00e9e d'une conciliation des mondes antique et chr\u00e9tien, une id\u00e9e qui devait trouver une expression plus grandiose dans la Chambre de la Signature. On rel\u00e8ve notamment, dans la l\u00e9gende de la Prudence de P\u00e9rouse, l\u2019expression \u00ab...Scrutari verum doceo causasque latentes...\u00bb. Et comme Rapha\u00ebl avait travaill\u00e9 avec le P\u00e9rugin, en compagnie de qui il \u00e9tait venu \u00e0 Rome, le lien entre \u00abscrutari... causas latentes\u00bb et \u00abcausarum cognitio\u00bb est tout \u00e0 fait plausible. Mais la formule a davantage d'application dans le domaine de la physique que dans celui de l'\u00e9thique, de m\u00eame que l'Art\u00e9mis d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se repr\u00e9sente la Nature avec ses secrets \u2013 l\u2019objet de la partie physique de la Philosophie \u2013, et n\u2019a gu\u00e8re de rapport avec l'\u00e9thique.\r\n\r\nLa dissym\u00e9trie est plus nette dans le traitement des deux personnages de Platon et d'Aristote. Le ma\u00eetre est, comme il se doit, \u00e0 la droite du disciple. La direction des gestes est si contrast\u00e9e qu\u2019elle ne peut signifier qu'une diff\u00e9rence de domaine : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge sont le domaine d'\u00e9lection de Platon, tandis que le Bonheur humain \u2013 le plus grand bonheur qui puisse \u00e9choir \u00e0 l\u2019homme \u2013 est ce qu'Aristote vient offrir en un geste g\u00e9n\u00e9reux, qui s\u2019adresse aux spectateurs de la fresque.\r\n\r\nComment ne pas voir dans cette structure iconographique un \u00e9cho pr\u00e9cis des conceptions n\u00e9oplatoniciennes ? On retrouve des th\u00e8mes que nous avons maintes fois rencontr\u00e9s et que Rapha\u00ebl \u2013 ou le responsable du programme iconographique \u2013 a puis\u00e9s dans la culture n\u00e9oplatonicienne de l'\u00e9poque, chez Marsile Ficin ou Pic de la Mirandole :\r\n\r\n L'harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote, tout d'abord : ce sont les deux figures centrales \u00e0 partir desquelles s'ordonne toute la composition.\r\n La sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie de Platon (les \u00abgrands myst\u00e8res\u00bb n\u00e9oplatoniciens) sur celle d\u2019Aristote (les \u00abpetits myst\u00e8res\u00bb), qui est la prop\u00e9deutique \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon et qui succ\u00e8de elle-m\u00eame au cycle des sept Arts Lib\u00e9raux, dont on a voulu d\u00e9celer la repr\u00e9sentation parmi le savant d\u00e9sordre des personnages qui entourent les deux figures centrales.\r\n La diff\u00e9rence des plans ontologiques auxquels se sont \u00e9lev\u00e9s les deux penseurs : Platon a d\u00e9crit le Monde non pas de mani\u00e8re immanente, mais en recherchant ses causes \u2013 les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge. Il \u00e9tudie les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles elles-m\u00eames en consid\u00e9rant leur relation \u00e0 celles qui sont au-dessus de la nature, c'est-\u00e0-dire les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s intelligibles et divines qui en sont les causes. L\u2019\u00e9tude du Tim\u00e9e, \u0153uvre platonicienne majeure pour le Moyen \u00c2ge occidental, relevait aussi dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 du second cycle du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des dialogues de Platon.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 Aristote, il offre une pens\u00e9e du bonheur qui doit permettre \u00e0 l\u2019homme, en menant la vie th\u00e9or\u00e9tique \u2013 qui est en grande partie une recherche des causes \u2013, de \u00abs\u2019immortaliser autant qu\u2019il est possible\u00bb. Dans une note, Gombrich signale qu\u2019\u00e0 la date o\u00f9 Rapha\u00ebl con\u00e7ut l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, il n\u2019existait pas de traduction italienne en \u00e9dition s\u00e9par\u00e9e du Tim\u00e9e ni des \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote. On peut ajouter que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps de Platon en grec ne devait \u00eatre publi\u00e9e qu\u2019en 1513 \u00e0 Venise (\u00e9dition aldine), et que Platon \u00e9tait lu \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque dans la c\u00e9l\u00e8bre traduction latine de Ficin imprim\u00e9e en 1484. On rappellera dans ce contexte que l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote en grec avait \u00e9t\u00e9 donn\u00e9e peu d'ann\u00e9es auparavant \u00e0 Venise par Alde Manuce. Pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, la Pr\u00e9face grecque d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (Agachemeros), collaborateur d\u2019Alde, justifie l'entreprise par un \u00e9loge de la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 de la philosophie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne, qui procure aux hommes le bonheur (eudaimonia). Peu apr\u00e8s, en 1499, paraissait \u00e0 Venise \u00e9galement l\u2019\u00e9dition princeps (incunable !) du Commentaire de Simplicius aux Cat\u00e9gories, \u0153uvre dans laquelle les humanistes italiens pouvaient commod\u00e9ment lire le d\u00e9veloppement que nous avons \u00e9tudi\u00e9 sur la finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nCes deux remarques bibliographiques ne pr\u00e9tendent en aucun cas assigner une source litt\u00e9raire \u00e0 un c\u00e9l\u00e8bre d\u00e9tail iconographique. La le\u00e7on de m\u00e9thode et de prudence d\u2019E. Gombrich est exemplaire, et il serait vain de vouloir ajouter une nouvelle hypoth\u00e8se, impossible \u00e0 prouver en toute rigueur, \u00e0 tant d\u2019autres. Ce que l\u2019on peut souligner en revanche, si l\u2019on veut bien admettre que, dans une p\u00e9riode d\u2019effervescence intellectuelle comme la Renaissance italienne, les livres publi\u00e9s \u00e9taient lus et que les id\u00e9es circulaient, c\u2019est un \u00e9cho troublant entre le th\u00e8me de la Pr\u00e9face d\u2019Alexandre Bondini (1495), le d\u00e9veloppement de Simplicius sur le Bonheur comme finalit\u00e9 de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote (imprim\u00e9 en 1499), et le principe \u00absymphonique\u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicien qui organise et unifie le programme iconographique de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (1509\u20131511). [conclusion p. 154-158]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KewGi1BBbx4GOnk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":186,"full_name":"Rinuy, Paul-Louis ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":187,"full_name":"Farnoux, Alexandre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":682,"section_of":165,"pages":"143-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":165,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Antiquit\u00e9s imaginaires. La r\u00e9f\u00e9rence antique dans l'art occidental, de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Rassemblant quatorze contributions de sp\u00e9cialistes de la litt\u00e9rature et de l\u2019histoire de l\u2019art, ce livre tente de donner une s\u00e9rie d\u2019aper\u00e7us pr\u00e9cis des diff\u00e9rentes mani\u00e8res dont la r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 a jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le, capital, dans la cr\u00e9ation artistique de la Renaissance \u00e0 nos jours.\r\nDe Rapha\u00ebl jusqu\u2019aux actuels mouvements \u00ab post-modernes \u00bb, la cr\u00e9ation a \u00e9t\u00e9 profond\u00e9ment marqu\u00e9e en Occident par les visages successifs d\u2019une Antiquit\u00e9 sans cesse r\u00e9invent\u00e9e et r\u00e9interpr\u00e9t\u00e9e. Ovide, Philostrate, Platon et Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au coeur des d\u00e9bats et des r\u00e9flexions des \u00e9crivains et des critiques, tout comme les chefs-d\u2019oeuvre de l\u2019architecture et de la sculpture \u2013 le Parth\u00e9non ou le Laocoon \u2013 ont inspir\u00e9 les artistes au fil de leurs red\u00e9couvertes successives de l\u2019art antique. H\u00e9ritage, influence, r\u00e9invention, Classic revival, Nachleben der Antike ? Les mots et les expressions sont nombreux pour tenter de cerner un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne crucial et chatoyant. Les \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies par Philippe Hoffmann, Paul-Louis Rinuy et Alexandre Farnoux, au terme d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire et d\u2019une table ronde tenus au Centre d\u2019\u00e9tudes anciennes de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure, veulent ouvrir des pistes pour de nouvelles recherches et illustrer divers aspects de la pr\u00e9sence de l\u2019Antique au sein des modernit\u00e9s [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Al1RSBIKKbIdEE7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":165,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'arri\u00e8re-plan n\u00e9oplatonicien de l'\u00c9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes de Rapha\u00ebl"]}
Title | L'ecole néoplatonicienne d'Athènes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Recherches sur le néoplatonisme après Plotin |
Pages | 127-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
À l’intérieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l’on désigne globalement sous le nom de néo-platonisme et qui se développe du IIIe au VIe siècle après J.-C., on distingue des écoles diverses. Fondé à Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 à 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs passèrent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le néo-platonisme se répandit d’abord en Asie Mineure et spécialement à Apamée et Antioche, où enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci réussit à amalgamer la métaphysique plotinienne et les théories et pratiques de la théurgie en vogue dans l’Orient grec. Cette synthèse fournit à l’empereur Julien l’Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion païenne qu’il tenta de faire triompher sous son règne (361-363). De cette école syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d’inégale valeur : d’une part, l’école de Pergame, franchement adonnée à la magie et délaissant entièrement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d’autre part, l’école d’Athènes, qui parviendra à se greffer sur la souche de l’antique Académie de Platon au début du Ve siècle. À peu près au même moment, un autre rejeton paraîtra à Alexandrie, et cette école survivra même à celle d’Athènes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe siècle tout le capital du néo-platonisme. [introduction p. 126] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1174","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1174,"authors_free":[{"id":1749,"entry_id":1174,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"\u00c0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du vaste mouvement philosophique que l\u2019on d\u00e9signe globalement sous le nom de n\u00e9o-platonisme et qui se d\u00e9veloppe du IIIe au VIe si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C., on distingue des \u00e9coles diverses.\r\n\r\nFond\u00e9 \u00e0 Rome par Plotin, qui y enseigne de 245 \u00e0 270, et maintenu vivant sur place par Porphyre et ses successeurs (dont plusieurs pass\u00e8rent au christianisme, par exemple Marius Victorinus), le n\u00e9o-platonisme se r\u00e9pandit d\u2019abord en Asie Mineure et sp\u00e9cialement \u00e0 Apam\u00e9e et Antioche, o\u00f9 enseigna Jamblique. Celui-ci r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 amalgamer la m\u00e9taphysique plotinienne et les th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la th\u00e9urgie en vogue dans l\u2019Orient grec. Cette synth\u00e8se fournit \u00e0 l\u2019empereur Julien l\u2019Apostat une base doctrinale pour le renouveau de la religion pa\u00efenne qu\u2019il tenta de faire triompher sous son r\u00e8gne (361-363).\r\n\r\nDe cette \u00e9cole syrienne sortirent deux rameaux d\u2019in\u00e9gale valeur : d\u2019une part, l\u2019\u00e9cole de Pergame, franchement adonn\u00e9e \u00e0 la magie et d\u00e9laissant enti\u00e8rement le vieux rationalisme grec, et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, qui parviendra \u00e0 se greffer sur la souche de l\u2019antique Acad\u00e9mie de Platon au d\u00e9but du Ve si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s au m\u00eame moment, un autre rejeton para\u00eetra \u00e0 Alexandrie, et cette \u00e9cole survivra m\u00eame \u00e0 celle d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes pour faire passer au monde arabe vers la fin du VIe si\u00e8cle tout le capital du n\u00e9o-platonisme. [introduction p. 126]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZrGOMqaxAxCT1p0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1174,"section_of":1461,"pages":"127-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1461,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Recherches sur le n\u00e9oplatonisme apr\u00e8s Plotin","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Saffrey1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PXWKxSDEtCXXJtb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1461,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'ecole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d'Ath\u00e8nes"]}
Title | L'interprétation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 143-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d’Épictète, qui compare la vie humaine à un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d’une interprétation allégorique de la parabole qui s’efforce de nous en faire découvrir le sens caché. En voici la traduction : "Or, il me semble qu’il a introduit un exemple imaginé d’une manière tout à fait appropriée. Car la mer, parce qu’elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agitées, qu’elle change d’une manière si variée, qu’elle étouffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l’analogie qu’elle présente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu’elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les âmes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d’Heimarmenê ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait être le dieu, lui qui, par ses prévoyantes pensées, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d’une manière adaptée au mérite (kat’ axian) de chacun, l’univers et la descente des âmes dans le devenir. L’entrée du navire au port, c’est la mise en place des âmes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c’est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendrées en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d’eau, c’est le soin des choses nécessaires à la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu’y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus nécessaire que l’eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l’on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-même l’exégèse d’une manière appropriée : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propriété, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont données par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres. Le principal, en effet, c’est d’être tendu et tourné perpétuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut même pas s’intéresser à ces choses, comme si elles étaient nécessaires de la même manière que la provision d’eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose véritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile à la vie." [introduction p. 143-144] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UWgctr8ErscwqR3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"946","_score":null,"_source":{"id":946,"authors_free":[{"id":1413,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1414,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1415,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1416,"entry_id":946,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale","main_title":{"title":"L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur ce chapitre du Manuel commence par une paraphrase de la parabole d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, qui compare la vie humaine \u00e0 un voyage maritime. Cette paraphrase est suivie d\u2019une interpr\u00e9tation all\u00e9gorique de la parabole qui s\u2019efforce de nous en faire d\u00e9couvrir le sens cach\u00e9. En voici la traduction :\r\n\r\n \"Or, il me semble qu\u2019il a introduit un exemple imagin\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait appropri\u00e9e. Car la mer, parce qu\u2019elle est pesante, que ses vagues sont agit\u00e9es, qu\u2019elle change d\u2019une mani\u00e8re si vari\u00e9e, qu\u2019elle \u00e9touffe ceux qui y sombrent, en vertu de l\u2019analogie qu\u2019elle pr\u00e9sente avec le devenir, les anciens auteurs de mythes, eux aussi, affirmaient qu\u2019elle est un symbole du devenir. Le navire serait ce qui transporte les \u00e2mes vers le devenir, et il faut lui donner soit le nom de Sort (Moira), soit le nom d\u2019Heimarmen\u00ea ou tel autre nom. Le pilote du navire pourrait \u00eatre le dieu, lui qui, par ses pr\u00e9voyantes pens\u00e9es, dirige et gouverne, comme il le faut et d\u2019une mani\u00e8re adapt\u00e9e au m\u00e9rite (kat\u2019 axian) de chacun, l\u2019univers et la descente des \u00e2mes dans le devenir.\r\n\r\n L\u2019entr\u00e9e du navire au port, c\u2019est la mise en place des \u00e2mes dans le lieu, le peuple, la famille qui leur convient : c\u2019est selon cette mise en place que les unes sont engendr\u00e9es en tel lieu, tel peuple, telle famille et par tels parents, les autres ailleurs. La sortie du navire pour la provision d\u2019eau, c\u2019est le soin des choses n\u00e9cessaires \u00e0 la vie, sans lesquelles il est impossible de subsister. Qu\u2019y a-t-il en effet, pour ceux qui sont dans le devenir, de plus n\u00e9cessaire que l\u2019eau, en vue de la nourriture et de la boisson ? Quant au fait de ramasser, comme une chose accessoire que l\u2019on trouve au bord du chemin, un coquillage ou un petit oignon, il en donne lui-m\u00eame l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019une mani\u00e8re appropri\u00e9e : cela veut dire femme, enfants, propri\u00e9t\u00e9, et autres choses de ce genre qui nous sont donn\u00e9es par le Tout ; il faut les recevoir sans doute, mais non pas comme objets principaux de notre choix, ni comme biens qui nous soient propres.\r\n\r\n Le principal, en effet, c\u2019est d\u2019\u00eatre tendu et tourn\u00e9 perp\u00e9tuellement vers le pilote. Et il ne faut m\u00eame pas s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 ces choses, comme si elles \u00e9taient n\u00e9cessaires de la m\u00eame mani\u00e8re que la provision d\u2019eau, mais il faut les recevoir comme une chose v\u00e9ritablement accessoire et qui est simplement utile \u00e0 la vie.\" [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UWgctr8ErscwqR3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":946,"section_of":218,"pages":"143-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["L'interpr\u00e9tation par Simplicius de la parabole de l'escale"]}
Title | La Physique d’Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"185","_score":null,"_source":{"id":185,"authors_free":[{"id":241,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2506,"entry_id":185,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":" I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCFPRwh1E2k3zgK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":185,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Minist\u00e8re de la culture et des sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":185,"section_of":1459,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O3DQotq4JIjFp7W","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La Physique d\u2019Aristote et les anciens commentateurs grecs"]}
Title | La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 29-62 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Mais face à tous les facteurs matériels, sociologiques, historiques qui précarisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de siècle en siècle la disparition de nombre d’entre eux, il s’est trouvé à tous les âges des esprits suffisamment éclairés pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d’autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois même s’en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie. Pour nous aussi, qui affrontons à notre tour de nouveaux supports, c’est peut-être cette activité fondamentale de transmission de l’héritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire à nos successeurs, s’il s’en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons reçu, nous avons essayé d’y mettre un peu d’ordre, nous avons édité et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajouté des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n’étaient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n’avons pas nous-mêmes tout compris, mais tout est bien là. [conclusion p. 61] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1333","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1333,"authors_free":[{"id":1966,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2374,"entry_id":1333,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs ","main_title":{"title":"La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs "},"abstract":"Mais face \u00e0 tous les facteurs mat\u00e9riels, sociologiques, historiques qui pr\u00e9carisaient la transmission de ces textes et provoquaient de si\u00e8cle en si\u00e8cle la disparition de nombre d\u2019entre eux, il s\u2019est trouv\u00e9 \u00e0 tous les \u00e2ges des esprits suffisamment \u00e9clair\u00e9s pour en saisir la valeur et en assurer la copie ou au moins la conservation, et d\u2019autres encore pour les traduire en diverses langues, les paraphraser, les annoter et les commenter, parfois m\u00eame s\u2019en inspirer pour construire leur propre philosophie.\r\n\r\nPour nous aussi, qui affrontons \u00e0 notre tour de nouveaux supports, c\u2019est peut-\u00eatre cette activit\u00e9 fondamentale de transmission de l\u2019h\u00e9ritage antique qui restera notre plus grand titre de gloire. Nous pourrons dire \u00e0 nos successeurs, s\u2019il s\u2019en trouve : nous vous transmettons ce que nous avons re\u00e7u, nous avons essay\u00e9 d\u2019y mettre un peu d\u2019ordre, nous avons \u00e9dit\u00e9 et traduit ces textes, nous avons ajout\u00e9 des gloses pour expliquer ce que nos contemporains n\u2019\u00e9taient plus en mesure de comprendre facilement, nous n\u2019avons pas nous-m\u00eames tout compris, mais tout est bien l\u00e0. [conclusion p. 61]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQmvNRD4MKEBc5h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1333,"section_of":37,"pages":"29-62","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs "]}
Title | La critique d’authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | Mansel’e Armağan. Mélanges Mansel, vol. I |
Pages | 265-288 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | Akurgal, Ekrem , Alkım, Uluğ Bahadır , Mansel, Arif Müfid |
Translator(s) |
Tout comme l’archéologie, la numismatique ou l’épigraphie, l’histoire littéraire est parfois amenée à se demander si les matériaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d’attribution devaient se produire plus aisément que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propriété littéraire était assez flottante ; un auteur plus récent ne se faisait aucun scrupule à reproduire, parfois littéralement, ce qu’un auteur plus ancien avait écrit sur le même sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude délibérée, le faussaire lançant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru. Il est remarquable que, dans les derniers siècles de l’Antiquité grecque, les commentateurs d’Aristote se soient posé la question de savoir si tel ou tel écrit dont ils avaient à s’occuper était bien l’œuvre d’Aristote. Divers témoignages nous apprennent même que le problème de l’authenticité était l’un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s’attaquer à l’analyse et à l’interprétation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d’introduction générale à la lecture d’Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son école s’arrêtaient aux dix questions suivantes : D’où les diverses écoles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ? Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d’Aristote ? Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l’étude de la philosophie aristotélicienne ? Quel est le but de cette philosophie ? Par quels moyens peut-on arriver à ce but ? Quels sont les caractères de l’exposé ou du style d’Aristote ? Comment justifier l’obscurité d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’interprète d’Aristote ? Quelles sont les qualités requises de l’étudiant qui aborde la philosophie d’Aristote ? Quelles questions convient-il d’examiner avant d’étudier chaque traité en particulier ? Nous n’avons pas à nous étendre ici sur le problème, assez controversé, de l’origine de ce schéma. Disons simplement que, même si sa forme stéréotypée est assez récente, certains de ses éléments sont à coup sûr bien antérieurs à Ammonius, chez qui le schéma apparaît pour la première fois. C’est le dixième point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l’avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d’expliquer chaque traité, de répondre dans l’introduction aux six questions suivantes : Quel est le but du traité en question ? Quelle est son utilité ? Quelle est sa place dans l’œuvre d’Aristote ? Comment expliquer son titre ? Le traité est-il authentique ? Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ? Bien sûr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la même acuité : il peut arriver, par exemple, que l’utilité de l’ouvrage soit évidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticité saute aux yeux et n’ait jamais été contestée ; alors, le commentateur n’aura pas à s’étendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est intéressant de noter que le problème de l’authenticité faisait partie des sujets habituellement abordés par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d’Aristote. Nous nous proposons d’examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d’authenticité qui ont survécu dans les commentaires arrivés jusqu’à nous. Plusieurs commentateurs néoplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et à la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l’on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n’émanant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants : Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu’ils acquéraient pour les bibliothèques qu’ils avaient créées ; cela ne pouvait qu’inciter les faussaires au travail. Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d’auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d’attribution. Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait à leur maître l’honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions. Ces indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erronées viennent de faire l’objet d’une bonne étude ; nous n’y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d’examiner plus en détail les déclarations des commentateurs relatives à l’authenticité de certains traités du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments étaient utilisés pour établir ou contester l’authenticité d’un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements portés dans les différents cas. Les traités ou parties de traités sur lesquels nous possédons, à cet égard, des renseignements concrets sont : les Catégories, les Postprédicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Catégories), le De interpretatione, les Analytiques, la Physique, les Météorologiques, et les deux premiers livres de la Métaphysique. [introduction p. 265-267] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"956","_score":null,"_source":{"id":956,"authors_free":[{"id":1434,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2111,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":262,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","free_first_name":"Ekrem","free_last_name":"Akurgal","norm_person":{"id":262,"first_name":"Ekrem","last_name":"Akurgal","full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859358","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2112,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":261,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","free_last_name":"Alk\u0131m","norm_person":{"id":261,"first_name":"Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","last_name":"Alk\u0131m","full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118859137","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2410,"entry_id":956,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":260,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","free_first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","free_last_name":"Mansel","norm_person":{"id":260,"first_name":"Arif M\u00fcfid","last_name":"Mansel","full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119020068","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Tout comme l\u2019arch\u00e9ologie, la numismatique ou l\u2019\u00e9pigraphie, l\u2019histoire litt\u00e9raire est parfois amen\u00e9e \u00e0 se demander si les mat\u00e9riaux sur lesquels elle travaille sont bien authentiques. Dans la transmission des textes antiques, en effet, les erreurs fortuites d\u2019attribution devaient se produire plus ais\u00e9ment que de nos jours. Par ailleurs, la notion de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 litt\u00e9raire \u00e9tait assez flottante\u202f; un auteur plus r\u00e9cent ne se faisait aucun scrupule \u00e0 reproduire, parfois litt\u00e9ralement, ce qu\u2019un auteur plus ancien avait \u00e9crit sur le m\u00eame sujet. Enfin, pour les raisons les plus diverses, il y a eu parfois fraude d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e, le faussaire lan\u00e7ant sous un autre nom, souvent un nom illustre, un ouvrage de son cru.\r\n\r\nIl est remarquable que, dans les derniers si\u00e8cles de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 grecque, les commentateurs d\u2019Aristote se soient pos\u00e9 la question de savoir si tel ou tel \u00e9crit dont ils avaient \u00e0 s\u2019occuper \u00e9tait bien l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote. Divers t\u00e9moignages nous apprennent m\u00eame que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 \u00e9tait l\u2019un de ceux que le commentateur devait aborder dans son introduction, avant de s\u2019attaquer \u00e0 l\u2019analyse et \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du texte proprement dit. On se rappellera que dans une sorte d\u2019introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la lecture d\u2019Aristote, Ammonius et plusieurs autres commentateurs issus de son \u00e9cole s\u2019arr\u00eataient aux dix questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n D\u2019o\u00f9 les diverses \u00e9coles philosophiques tirent-elles leur nom ?\r\n Comment faut-il classer les ouvrages d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Par quelle discipline doit-on commencer l\u2019\u00e9tude de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ?\r\n Quel est le but de cette philosophie ?\r\n Par quels moyens peut-on arriver \u00e0 ce but ?\r\n Quels sont les caract\u00e8res de l\u2019expos\u00e9 ou du style d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment justifier l\u2019obscurit\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019interpr\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles sont les qualit\u00e9s requises de l\u2019\u00e9tudiant qui aborde la philosophie d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Quelles questions convient-il d\u2019examiner avant d\u2019\u00e9tudier chaque trait\u00e9 en particulier ?\r\n\r\nNous n\u2019avons pas \u00e0 nous \u00e9tendre ici sur le probl\u00e8me, assez controvers\u00e9, de l\u2019origine de ce sch\u00e9ma. Disons simplement que, m\u00eame si sa forme st\u00e9r\u00e9otyp\u00e9e est assez r\u00e9cente, certains de ses \u00e9l\u00e9ments sont \u00e0 coup s\u00fbr bien ant\u00e9rieurs \u00e0 Ammonius, chez qui le sch\u00e9ma appara\u00eet pour la premi\u00e8re fois. C\u2019est le dixi\u00e8me point qui doit retenir ici notre attention. De l\u2019avis des commentateurs, il convient, en effet, avant d\u2019expliquer chaque trait\u00e9, de r\u00e9pondre dans l\u2019introduction aux six questions suivantes :\r\n\r\n Quel est le but du trait\u00e9 en question ?\r\n Quelle est son utilit\u00e9 ?\r\n Quelle est sa place dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote ?\r\n Comment expliquer son titre ?\r\n Le trait\u00e9 est-il authentique ?\r\n Quelles en sont les grandes divisions ?\r\n\r\nBien s\u00fbr, toutes ces questions ne se posent pas dans tous les cas avec la m\u00eame acuit\u00e9\u202f: il peut arriver, par exemple, que l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de l\u2019ouvrage soit \u00e9vidente, ou que son titre soit clair, ou encore que son authenticit\u00e9 saute aux yeux et n\u2019ait jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contest\u00e9e\u202f; alors, le commentateur n\u2019aura pas \u00e0 s\u2019\u00e9tendre sur ces questions. Quoi qu\u2019il en soit, il est int\u00e9ressant de noter que le probl\u00e8me de l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 faisait partie des sujets habituellement abord\u00e9s par les commentateurs dans leurs introductions aux divers ouvrages d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nNous nous proposons d\u2019examiner, dans les pages qui suivent, les quelques traces de cette critique d\u2019authenticit\u00e9 qui ont surv\u00e9cu dans les commentaires arriv\u00e9s jusqu\u2019\u00e0 nous. Plusieurs commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens indiquent pour quelles raisons et \u00e0 la suite de quelles circonstances il a pu se faire que l\u2019on attribue au Stagirite des ouvrages n\u2019\u00e9manant pas de lui. En gros, ils citent les motifs suivants :\r\n\r\n Certains rois payaient bien les textes qu\u2019ils acqu\u00e9raient pour les biblioth\u00e8ques qu\u2019ils avaient cr\u00e9\u00e9es\u202f; cela ne pouvait qu\u2019inciter les faussaires au travail.\r\n Par ailleurs, la similitude de certains noms d\u2019auteurs ou de certains titres a pu provoquer des confusions ou des erreurs d\u2019attribution.\r\n Enfin, partant de bonnes intentions, certains disciples ont fait \u00e0 leur ma\u00eetre l\u2019honneur de lui attribuer leurs propres productions.\r\n\r\nCes indications des commentateurs sur les causes des attributions erron\u00e9es viennent de faire l\u2019objet d\u2019une bonne \u00e9tude\u202f; nous n\u2019y reviendrons donc pas. En revanche, nous croyons utile d\u2019examiner plus en d\u00e9tail les d\u00e9clarations des commentateurs relatives \u00e0 l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 de certains trait\u00e9s du corpus aristotelicum. Cela nous permettra de voir quels arguments \u00e9taient utilis\u00e9s pour \u00e9tablir ou contester l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 d\u2019un ouvrage, et aussi de mesurer la valeur des jugements port\u00e9s dans les diff\u00e9rents cas.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s ou parties de trait\u00e9s sur lesquels nous poss\u00e9dons, \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, des renseignements concrets sont :\r\n\r\n les Cat\u00e9gories,\r\n les Postpr\u00e9dicaments (chapitres 10-15 des Cat\u00e9gories),\r\n le De interpretatione,\r\n les Analytiques,\r\n la Physique,\r\n les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques,\r\n et les deux premiers livres de la M\u00e9taphysique. [introduction p. 265-267]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0K9jPcuuBUt3j54","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":262,"full_name":"Akurgal, Ekrem","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":261,"full_name":"Alk\u0131m, Ulu\u011f Bahad\u0131r","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":260,"full_name":"Mansel, Arif M\u00fcfid","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":956,"section_of":296,"pages":"265-288","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":296,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Mansel\u2019e Arma\u011fan. M\u00e9langes Mansel, vol. I","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mansel1974","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySvGVCjObmF3lEv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":296,"pubplace":"Ankara","publisher":"T\u00fcrk Tarih Kurumu Bas\u0131mevi","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La critique d\u2019authenticite chez les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 249-285 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Nous pouvons donc résumer en quelques mots le résultat de nos recherches. La division des écrits d’Aristote, telle quelle est présentée dans les commentaires néoplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensemble, un pur produit de la philosophie néoplatonicienne, produit qui intègre néanmoins quelques éléments qui remontent à une époque antérieure à cette philosophie. Ce qui me paraît être typiquement et exclusivement néoplatonicien, c’est la division des écrits aristotéliciens en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux. D’abord, la place des Lettres au début de la liste est une particularité que la division néoplatonicienne ne partage, à ma connaissance, avec aucune autre liste non seulement d’écrits aristotéliciens, mais aussi d’écrits de n’importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la catégorie des écrits intermédiaires ne peut avoir de sens qu’à l’intérieur du système néoplatonicien, car elle sert surtout à se débarrasser d’un certain nombre d’écrits bio logiques d’Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n’avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique néoplatonicien. Pour les péripatéticiens au con traire, ces écrits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l’apprend au début de son commentaire sur la Physique128, où il reproduit le classement péripatéticien des écrits physiques d’Aristote. Pour les péripatéticiens, comme d’ailleurs pour n’importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de séparer les écrits d’Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en deux catégories, l’une qui comprendrait des écrits «intermédiaires», l’autre qui rassemblerait les écrits physiques et correspondrait à une subdivision des écrits généraux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette séparation n’était possible que dans la perspective de l’ontologie néoplatonicienne. Il y a d’ailleurs confusion des deux systèmes dans la division de David. Il respecte d’abord la division néoplatonicienne en écrits particuliers, intermédiaires et généraux en donnant des exemples adéquats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive à la rubrique physique des écrits théorétiques, il suit, en énumérant des exemples, la liste péripatéticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des écrits d’Aristote qui se trouvait à la suite de sa biographie. Il répète donc quelques titres qu’il avait auparavant classés dans les écrits intermédiaires et ajoute bon nombre de traités qui, selon le point de vue néoplatonicien, n’ont rien à voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GosX6JCGE0N12qC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":697,"authors_free":[{"id":1036,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1037,"entry_id":697,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Nous pouvons donc r\u00e9sumer en quelques mots le r\u00e9sultat de nos recherches. La division des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote, telle quelle est pr\u00e9sen\u00adt\u00e9e dans les commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, est, prise dans son ensem\u00adble, un pur produit de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, produit qui int\u00e8gre n\u00e9anmoins quelques \u00e9l\u00e9ments qui remontent \u00e0 une \u00e9poque ant\u00e9rieure \u00e0 cette philosophie. Ce qui me para\u00eet \u00eatre typiquement et exclusivement n\u00e9oplatonicien, c\u2019est la division des \u00e9crits aristot\u00e9li\u00adciens en \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux. D\u2019abord, la \r\nplace des Lettres au d\u00e9but de la liste est une particularit\u00e9 que la divi\u00adsion n\u00e9oplatonicienne ne partage, \u00e0 ma connaissance, avec aucune \r\nautre liste non seulement d\u2019\u00e9crits aristot\u00e9liciens, mais aussi d\u2019\u00e9crits de n\u2019importe quel auteur. Ensuite, la cat\u00e9gorie des \u00e9crits interm\u00e9di\u00adaires ne peut avoir de sens qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du syst\u00e8me n\u00e9oplatonicien, car elle sert surtout \u00e0 se d\u00e9barrasser d\u2019un certain nombre d\u2019\u00e9crits bio\u00ad\r\nlogiques d\u2019Aristote, parce que ceux-ci n\u2019avaient pas de place dans le cursus philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens au con\u00ad\r\ntraire, ces \u00e9crits rentraient tout simplement dans la partie physique de la philosophie, comme Simplicius nous l\u2019apprend au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur la Physique128, o\u00f9 il reproduit le classement p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien des \u00e9crits physiques d\u2019Aristote. Pour les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, \r\ncomme d\u2019ailleurs pour n\u2019importe quel auteur de Pinax, le fait de s\u00e9parer les \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote se rapportant aux choses de la nature en \r\ndeux cat\u00e9gories, l\u2019une qui comprendrait des \u00e9crits \u00abinterm\u00e9diaires\u00bb, l\u2019autre qui rassemblerait les \u00e9crits physiques et correspondrait \u00e0 une \r\nsubdivision des \u00e9crits g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, ne pouvait avoir aucun sens. Cette s\u00e9paration n\u2019\u00e9tait possible que dans la perspective de l\u2019ontologie \r\nn\u00e9oplatonicienne. Il y a d\u2019ailleurs confusion des deux syst\u00e8mes dans la division de David. Il respecte d\u2019abord la division n\u00e9oplatonicienne \r\nen \u00e9crits particuliers, interm\u00e9diaires et g\u00e9n\u00e9raux en donnant des exemples ad\u00e9quats pour chaque rubrique, mais quand il arrive \u00e0 la \r\nrubrique physique des \u00e9crits th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques, il suit, en \u00e9num\u00e9rant des exemples, la liste p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne ou tout simplement le pinax des \u00e9crits d\u2019Aristote qui se trouvait \u00e0 la suite de sa biographie. Il r\u00e9p\u00e8te donc quelques titres qu\u2019il avait auparavant class\u00e9s dans les \u00e9crits \r\ninterm\u00e9diaires et ajoute bon nombre de trait\u00e9s qui, selon le point de vue n\u00e9oplatonicien, n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec la philosophie. [conclusion, p. 284-285]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GosX6JCGE0N12qC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":697,"section_of":189,"pages":"249-285","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La division n\u00e9oplatonicienne des \u00e9crits d'Aristote"]}
Title | La défense de Platon contre Aristote par les néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme Dévoilé |
Pages | 175-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Romano, Francesco |
Editor(s) | Dixsaut, Monique |
Translator(s) |
Pour aborder le problème de la défense de Platon contre Aristote par les Néoplatoniciens, il est nécessaire d’opérer des distinctions à la fois historiques et théoriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du développement chronologique de la pensée néoplatonicienne que des différences pouvant exister d’une école néoplatonicienne à l’autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopté des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le problème de savoir si Aristote avait attaqué la théorie des Idées dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interprétation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donnée. D’après ce que nous disent David [Elias], d’une part : Δεῖ αὐτὸν μὴ συμπάσχειν τῷ Πλάτωνι· συνδιδοῖσι τῷ πεπονθέν· Ἰάμβλιχος· οὗτος γὰρ προσπάσχων τῷ Πλάτωνι συνδιδοῖσι τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ὅτι οὐκ ἀντιλέγει τῷ Πλάτωνι διὰ τὰς ἰδέας (« L’exégète ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique à la manière de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, prévenu en faveur de Platon, concéda également à Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Idées »), et Étienne d’Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d’autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu’Aristote n’avait pas réfuté Platon à propos des Idées. Tandis que Proclus – si l’on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus réfutait les objections d’Aristote contre le Timée (mais Syrianus aurait fait de même avant Proclus, d’après le témoignage d’Asclepius de Tralle) – aurait, pour sa part, été convaincu qu’Aristote avait combattu et réfuté Platon également sur ce point. Comme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des Péripatéticiens en général, mais il n’est pas possible d’exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se hâter d’ajouter que, malgré leurs divergences, presque tous les Néoplatoniciens s’accordent à considérer comme leur tâche propre de défendre Platon contre les attaques d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens, afin au moins d’éliminer les malentendus et les interprétations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les différentes positions prises tour à tour par l’un ou l’autre des Néoplatoniciens, ou mieux par l’un ou l’autre des courants scolastiques néoplatoniciens, tiennent à des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage à démontrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu’à viser l’objectif principal commandant n’importe quelle exégèse néoplatonicienne du texte d’Aristote : la faire, d’une façon institutionnelle, servir le plus possible à la lecture et à l’étude des textes platoniciens. Si nous voulons comprendre l’esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien théoriques qu’historiques, adoptées par les Néoplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d’une distinction préliminaire entre, d’une part, l’attitude polémique de ceux qui tendent à souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote – donc s’efforcent de réfuter explicitement et sans équivoque les objections d’Aristote et des Péripatéticiens contre Platon – et, d’autre part, l’attitude critique (mais peu ou guère critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout à minimiser la « puissance destructrice » des objections aristotéliciennes et péripatéticiennes, au point de ramener la position réelle d’Aristote à celle de Platon. En d’autres termes, il s’agit ou bien de défendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdités présumées dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d’interpréter d’une façon compatible avec la « vérité » platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu’on suppose être la « vérité » aristotélicienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l’emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n’atteint pas sa cible ou pousse à mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l’on accorde à cette critique n’est pas celui qu’elle possède effectivement ou n’est pas le seul qu’elle puisse posséder. L’exégète néoplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le même résultat en suivant deux voies différentes : l’important est de montrer que l’opposition présumée d’Aristote à Platon peut être dépassée et que l’étude du texte d’Aristote peut servir à faciliter la compréhension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Académiciens, tenus pour être la cible des objections d’Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le maître commun). Tout cela signifie que n’importe quelle exégèse du texte aristotélicien (de n’importe quel texte aristotélicien) fait partie de l’exégèse plus générale du texte platonicien. C’était là une des règles de l’enseignement néoplatonicien, donc un élément doctrinal commun à tous les Néoplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-être, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la légitimité de l’exégèse prédominante (à cette époque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristotéliciens. Mais il est temps d’entrer dans le vif du sujet. Nous allons examiner six textes tirés respectivement l’un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d’Ammonius ; après en avoir donné la traduction (la mienne, en l’absence d’indication contraire), j’en viendrai aux conséquences de mon interprétation. [introduction p. 175-177] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/LVbezb3omxhQNRC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1057","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1057,"authors_free":[{"id":1605,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":305,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Romano, Francesco","free_first_name":"Francesco","free_last_name":"Romano","norm_person":{"id":305,"first_name":"Francesco","last_name":"Romano","full_name":"Romano, Francesco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028249454","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1606,"entry_id":1057,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":306,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","free_first_name":"Monique","free_last_name":"Dixsaut","norm_person":{"id":306,"first_name":"Monique","last_name":"Dixsaut","full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114771979","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Pour aborder le probl\u00e8me de la d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il est n\u00e9cessaire d\u2019op\u00e9rer des distinctions \u00e0 la fois historiques et th\u00e9oriques ; il faut en effet tenir compte tant du d\u00e9veloppement chronologique de la pens\u00e9e n\u00e9oplatonicienne que des diff\u00e9rences pouvant exister d\u2019une \u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne \u00e0 l\u2019autre. Il semble, par exemple, que Jamblique et Proclus aient adopt\u00e9 des positions sensiblement divergentes sur le probl\u00e8me de savoir si Aristote avait attaqu\u00e9 la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es dans sa formulation platonicienne ou dans la fausse interpr\u00e9tation que certains Platoniciens en avaient donn\u00e9e.\r\nD\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous disent David [Elias], d\u2019une part :\r\n\u0394\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u00b7 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u00b7 \u1f38\u03ac\u03bc\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2\u00b7 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f08\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03a0\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2\r\n(\u00ab L\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te ne doit pas sympathiser avec une quelconque secte philosophique \u00e0 la mani\u00e8re de Jamblique. Celui-ci, en effet, pr\u00e9venu en faveur de Platon, conc\u00e9da \u00e9galement \u00e0 Aristote de ne pas avoir contredit Platon au sujet des Id\u00e9es \u00bb), et \u00c9tienne d\u2019Alexandrie [Ps. Philopon], d\u2019autre part, Jamblique aurait soutenu qu\u2019Aristote n\u2019avait pas r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e0 propos des Id\u00e9es. Tandis que Proclus \u2013 si l\u2019on en croit Philopon (De aetern. mundi, 31), faisant allusion au livre, perdu, par lequel Proclus r\u00e9futait les objections d\u2019Aristote contre le Tim\u00e9e (mais Syrianus aurait fait de m\u00eame avant Proclus, d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage d\u2019Asclepius de Tralle) \u2013 aurait, pour sa part, \u00e9t\u00e9 convaincu qu\u2019Aristote avait combattu et r\u00e9fut\u00e9 Platon \u00e9galement sur ce point.\r\nComme nous allons le voir (texte 2), Proclus parle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, mais il n\u2019est pas possible d\u2019exclure Aristote. Cela dit, il faut toutefois se h\u00e2ter d\u2019ajouter que, malgr\u00e9 leurs divergences, presque tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens s\u2019accordent \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer comme leur t\u00e2che propre de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les attaques d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, afin au moins d\u2019\u00e9liminer les malentendus et les interpr\u00e9tations perverses que ceux-ci exploitent souvent pour opposer les deux philosophes. Autrement dit, les diff\u00e9rentes positions prises tour \u00e0 tour par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, ou mieux par l\u2019un ou l\u2019autre des courants scolastiques n\u00e9oplatoniciens, tiennent \u00e0 des nuances argumentatives. Elles cherchent davantage \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer la concordance entre Platon et Aristote qu\u2019\u00e0 viser l\u2019objectif principal commandant n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se n\u00e9oplatonicienne du texte d\u2019Aristote : la faire, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on institutionnelle, servir le plus possible \u00e0 la lecture et \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des textes platoniciens.\r\nSi nous voulons comprendre l\u2019esprit de certaines positions, aussi bien th\u00e9oriques qu\u2019historiques, adopt\u00e9es par les N\u00e9oplatoniciens, il nous faut donc partir d\u2019une distinction pr\u00e9liminaire entre, d\u2019une part, l\u2019attitude pol\u00e9mique de ceux qui tendent \u00e0 souligner les divergences plus ou moins substantielles entre Platon et Aristote \u2013 donc s\u2019efforcent de r\u00e9futer explicitement et sans \u00e9quivoque les objections d\u2019Aristote et des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens contre Platon \u2013 et, d\u2019autre part, l\u2019attitude critique (mais peu ou gu\u00e8re critique en apparence) de ceux qui cherchent surtout \u00e0 minimiser la \u00ab puissance destructrice \u00bb des objections aristot\u00e9liciennes et p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiennes, au point de ramener la position r\u00e9elle d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 celle de Platon.\r\nEn d\u2019autres termes, il s\u2019agit ou bien de d\u00e9fendre Platon contre les contradictions ou absurdit\u00e9s pr\u00e9sum\u00e9es dont on veut le rendre coupable, ou bien d\u2019interpr\u00e9ter d\u2019une fa\u00e7on compatible avec la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb platonicienne ses apparentes discordances avec ce qu\u2019on suppose \u00eatre la \u00ab v\u00e9rit\u00e9 \u00bb aristot\u00e9licienne. Mais en aucun cas Aristote ne doit et ne peut l\u2019emporter sur Platon, soit parce que sa critique de Platon n\u2019atteint pas sa cible ou pousse \u00e0 mal le comprendre, soit parce que le sens que l\u2019on accorde \u00e0 cette critique n\u2019est pas celui qu\u2019elle poss\u00e8de effectivement ou n\u2019est pas le seul qu\u2019elle puisse poss\u00e9der.\r\nL\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc, peut obtenir le m\u00eame r\u00e9sultat en suivant deux voies diff\u00e9rentes : l\u2019important est de montrer que l\u2019opposition pr\u00e9sum\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Platon peut \u00eatre d\u00e9pass\u00e9e et que l\u2019\u00e9tude du texte d\u2019Aristote peut servir \u00e0 faciliter la compr\u00e9hension du texte de Platon (pour atteindre ce but, on doit parfois sacrifier les anciens Acad\u00e9miciens, tenus pour \u00eatre la cible des objections d\u2019Aristote : en ce cas, ce sont les anciens disciples de Platon qui auront mal compris le ma\u00eetre commun). Tout cela signifie que n\u2019importe quelle ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du texte aristot\u00e9licien (de n\u2019importe quel texte aristot\u00e9licien) fait partie de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se plus g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du texte platonicien.\r\nC\u2019\u00e9tait l\u00e0 une des r\u00e8gles de l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien, donc un \u00e9l\u00e9ment doctrinal commun \u00e0 tous les N\u00e9oplatoniciens. On pourrait faire, peut-\u00eatre, une exception pour Damascius, qui, on le sait, contestait souvent la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se pr\u00e9dominante (\u00e0 cette \u00e9poque, celle de Proclus) des textes platoniciens et aristot\u00e9liciens. Mais il est temps d\u2019entrer dans le vif du sujet.\r\nNous allons examiner six textes tir\u00e9s respectivement l\u2019un de Simplicius, quatre de Proclus, et un autre d\u2019Ammonius ; apr\u00e8s en avoir donn\u00e9 la traduction (la mienne, en l\u2019absence d\u2019indication contraire), j\u2019en viendrai aux cons\u00e9quences de mon interpr\u00e9tation. [introduction p. 175-177]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LVbezb3omxhQNRC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":305,"full_name":"Romano, Francesco","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":306,"full_name":"Dixsaut, Monique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1057,"section_of":310,"pages":"175-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":310,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Contre Platon. Tome I: Le Platonisme D\u00e9voil\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dixsaut1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"Pourquoi, comment, devient-on antiplatonicien ? A l'\u00e9vidence, en s'opposant au platonisme, d'embl\u00e9e le probl\u00e8me se complique, car il n'est pas certain apr\u00e8s tout que Platon, si obstin\u00e9ment absent de ses propres dialogues, si d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9ment anonyme, ait \u00e9t\u00e9 platonicien. Comment s'opposer \u00e0 qui ne parle jamais en son nom, pourquoi r\u00e9futer une doctrine que son auteur n'a jamais pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e comme telle ni revendiqu\u00e9e comme sienne et dont le sens semble pouvoir \u00eatre librement \u00e9labor\u00e9 par les adversaires du moment et pour les besoins de leur cause ? En quoi le platonisme autorise-t-il ces attaques globales et parfois \u00e9trangement violentes ? Peut-\u00eatre est-ce parce que chaque \u00e9poque croit y d\u00e9celer ce qu'elle tient pour la forme extr\u00eame de la d\u00e9mesure et de l'orgueil philosophiques, indiquant du m\u00eame coup les probl\u00e8mes et les attitudes jug\u00e9s par elle tol\u00e9rables en philosophie. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9zfyHBZbSdr0Iyv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":310,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Tradition de la pens\u00e9e classique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La d\u00e9fense de Platon contre Aristote par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
Title | La fin de l'Acádemie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1971 |
Published in | Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le Néoplatonisme organisé dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique à Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969 |
Pages | 281-290 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
Editor(s) | Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l’Académie tomba dans un déclin rapide. Trois générations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient été formés à Athènes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la génération suivante, Asclépius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous élèves d’Ammonius à Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-même avait été élève de Proclus. Nous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus à Athènes, mais ils ne sont guère pour nous que des noms. Même Damascius, qui était scolarque en l’année fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie à Athènes n’était jamais tombée aussi bas que juste avant son accession à la chaire. Tout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont généralement considéré que ce déclin a continué sans interruption jusqu’en 529 et qu’en 529, lorsque Justinien a publié son illustre édit fermant l’Académie, elle était déjà sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils considèrent que l’acte de Justinien fut plutôt de l’euthanasie qu’un assassinat. La dernière étude sur la fermeture de l’Académie admet sans discussion qu’en 529, la philosophie païenne d’Athènes avait déjà succombé sous les coups de la philosophie christianisée d’Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les étudiants, sauvés des griffes de l’impie Damascius, pouvaient désormais être guidés sur les chemins de la vérité par des chrétiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. Hélas ! Cette image édifiante n’a rien à voir avec l’histoire. Il est douteux qu’il y ait jamais eu une école chrétienne de philosophie à Gaza. Énée et Procope étaient tous deux professeurs de rhétorique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rhéteurs (Épiphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux étaient morts. En ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement à une opinion largement répandue, Philopon ne succéda pas à la chaire d’Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est resté, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de littérature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la théologie — et vers l’hérésie. En outre, l’influence de la tradition scolaire était si forte, même dans le cas de philosophes chrétiens, que les écrits de Philopon ont exercé une influence étonnamment faible sur l’enseignement à Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore à Alexandrie dans les années 560, était en effet païen, et ses successeurs, Élie, David, Étienne, bien que chrétiens, continuèrent à enseigner des doctrines comme l’éternité du monde et la divinité des corps célestes, qui avaient été déjà depuis longtemps réfutées par Philopon. Nous ne découvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois évoqué en termes grandiloquents comme une synthèse de l’aristotélisme et du christianisme. Dès lors, il ne saurait être question de la vitalité supérieure d’une philosophie chrétienne écrasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l’on compare le travail qui se fait à Athènes et à Alexandrie dans la première moitié du VIe siècle — en négligeant la production des dernières années de Philopon, comme étrangère à la tradition universitaire proprement dite —, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins. Quant à la réputation de Damascius comme professeur (et la compétence scientifique a autant d’importance que l’habileté pédagogique), elle est établie par la liste de ses élèves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Phénicie et de Gaza : un véritable recrutement international. Assez étrangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caractère international de l’école de Damascius pour prouver la décadence de l’Académie. Athènes elle-même, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Athéniens pour cultiver l’héritage de Platon. C’est ignorer le caractère international de la vie universitaire à la fin de l’Antiquité, caractère bien mis en évidence par la Vie d’Isidore écrite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes. En cet âge d’or de la rhétorique que fut le IVe siècle, à Athènes, les grands noms étaient Julien de Cappadoce, Himérius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d’Arménie. À peu près aucun Athénien parmi eux. Proclus lui-même était lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C’est plutôt un signe de la santé de ses institutions qu’Athènes pût encore attirer des étrangers de valeur ! Je voudrais suggérer, en effet, que bien loin que ce fût l’Académie qui fût sur son lit de mort en 529, c’était l’école d’Alexandrie qui était en déclin après la mort d’Ammonius, alors que l’Académie reprenait vie. Les successeurs d’Ammonius à Alexandrie furent Eutocius le mathématicien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l’un ni l’autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l’énergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l’Académie et s’était entouré d’une équipe de disciples dévoués — dévoués, car nous savons qu’ils le suivirent en Perse après la fermeture de l’Académie. Une illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Athènes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore dépendait essentiellement d’Ammonius, dans ses dernières œuvres, il s’appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, là encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Athènes. Il se peut que Justinien n’ait pas fermé l’Académie par mépris, parce qu’elle était moribonde, mais — et c’est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible — par crainte, parce qu’elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1258","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1258,"authors_free":[{"id":1837,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2334,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":23,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime","free_first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","free_last_name":"Schuhl","norm_person":{"id":23,"first_name":"Pierre-Maxime","last_name":"Schuhl","full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117559718X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2335,"entry_id":1258,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie","main_title":{"title":"La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"},"abstract":"Avec la mort de Proclus en 485, l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie tomba dans un d\u00e9clin rapide. Trois g\u00e9n\u00e9rations durant, les meilleurs philosophes avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9s \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes par Plutarque, Syrianus et Proclus. Au contraire, les meilleurs philosophes de la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration suivante, Ascl\u00e9pius, Damascius, Eutocius, Olympiodore, Philopon et Simplicius, furent tous \u00e9l\u00e8ves d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie. Ammonius lui-m\u00eame avait \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve de Proclus.\r\n\r\nNous connaissons les noms de tous les successeurs de Proclus \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, mais ils ne sont gu\u00e8re pour nous que des noms. M\u00eame Damascius, qui \u00e9tait scolarque en l\u2019ann\u00e9e fatidique de 529, admet que la philosophie \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes n\u2019\u00e9tait jamais tomb\u00e9e aussi bas que juste avant son accession \u00e0 la chaire.\r\n\r\nTout cela est hors de conteste. Pourtant, les savants modernes ont g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement consid\u00e9r\u00e9 que ce d\u00e9clin a continu\u00e9 sans interruption jusqu\u2019en 529 et qu\u2019en 529, lorsque Justinien a publi\u00e9 son illustre \u00e9dit fermant l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, elle \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 sur son lit de mort. Autrement dit, ils consid\u00e8rent que l\u2019acte de Justinien fut plut\u00f4t de l\u2019euthanasie qu\u2019un assassinat.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re \u00e9tude sur la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie admet sans discussion qu\u2019en 529, la philosophie pa\u00efenne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 succomb\u00e9 sous les coups de la philosophie christianis\u00e9e d\u2019Alexandrie et de Gaza, que les \u00e9tudiants, sauv\u00e9s des griffes de l\u2019impie Damascius, pouvaient d\u00e9sormais \u00eatre guid\u00e9s sur les chemins de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 par des chr\u00e9tiens comme Philopon et Procope de Gaza. H\u00e9las ! Cette image \u00e9difiante n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec l\u2019histoire.\r\n\r\nIl est douteux qu\u2019il y ait jamais eu une \u00e9cole chr\u00e9tienne de philosophie \u00e0 Gaza. \u00c9n\u00e9e et Procope \u00e9taient tous deux professeurs de rh\u00e9torique, et leurs plus fameux disciples furent aussi des rh\u00e9teurs (\u00c9piphanius, Choricius). En tous cas, en 529, tous deux \u00e9taient morts.\r\n\r\nEn ce qui concerne Alexandrie, contrairement \u00e0 une opinion largement r\u00e9pandue, Philopon ne succ\u00e9da pas \u00e0 la chaire d\u2019Ammonius. Pour des raisons que nous ne connaissons pas, il est rest\u00e9, semble-t-il, toute sa vie grammaticus, professeur de litt\u00e9rature. Et vers la fin de sa vie, il se tourna de plus en plus de la philosophie vers la th\u00e9ologie \u2014 et vers l\u2019h\u00e9r\u00e9sie.\r\n\r\nEn outre, l\u2019influence de la tradition scolaire \u00e9tait si forte, m\u00eame dans le cas de philosophes chr\u00e9tiens, que les \u00e9crits de Philopon ont exerc\u00e9 une influence \u00e9tonnamment faible sur l\u2019enseignement \u00e0 Alexandrie. Olympiodore, qui enseignait encore \u00e0 Alexandrie dans les ann\u00e9es 560, \u00e9tait en effet pa\u00efen, et ses successeurs, \u00c9lie, David, \u00c9tienne, bien que chr\u00e9tiens, continu\u00e8rent \u00e0 enseigner des doctrines comme l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde et la divinit\u00e9 des corps c\u00e9lestes, qui avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9j\u00e0 depuis longtemps r\u00e9fut\u00e9es par Philopon.\r\n\r\nNous ne d\u00e9couvrons certainement pas ce qui est quelquefois \u00e9voqu\u00e9 en termes grandiloquents comme une synth\u00e8se de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du christianisme.\r\n\r\nD\u00e8s lors, il ne saurait \u00eatre question de la vitalit\u00e9 sup\u00e9rieure d\u2019une philosophie chr\u00e9tienne \u00e9crasant les faibles survivants du paganisme sur leur propre terrain. De fait, si l\u2019on compare le travail qui se fait \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes et \u00e0 Alexandrie dans la premi\u00e8re moiti\u00e9 du VIe si\u00e8cle \u2014 en n\u00e9gligeant la production des derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es de Philopon, comme \u00e9trang\u00e8re \u00e0 la tradition universitaire proprement dite \u2014, il est clair que Damascius et Simplicius surpassent de beaucoup leurs rivaux alexandrins.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la r\u00e9putation de Damascius comme professeur (et la comp\u00e9tence scientifique a autant d\u2019importance que l\u2019habilet\u00e9 p\u00e9dagogique), elle est \u00e9tablie par la liste de ses \u00e9l\u00e8ves en 529, qui comprenait des philosophes originaires de Cilicie, de Phrygie, de Lydie, de Ph\u00e9nicie et de Gaza : un v\u00e9ritable recrutement international.\r\n\r\nAssez \u00e9trangement, on a voulu tirer argument du caract\u00e8re international de l\u2019\u00e9cole de Damascius pour prouver la d\u00e9cadence de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Ath\u00e8nes elle-m\u00eame, dit-on, ne pouvait plus produire des Ath\u00e9niens pour cultiver l\u2019h\u00e9ritage de Platon. C\u2019est ignorer le caract\u00e8re international de la vie universitaire \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, caract\u00e8re bien mis en \u00e9vidence par la Vie d\u2019Isidore \u00e9crite par Damascius et par Eunape dans les Vies des sophistes.\r\n\r\nEn cet \u00e2ge d\u2019or de la rh\u00e9torique que fut le IVe si\u00e8cle, \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, les grands noms \u00e9taient Julien de Cappadoce, Him\u00e9rius de Bithynie, Prohairesius d\u2019Arm\u00e9nie. \u00c0 peu pr\u00e8s aucun Ath\u00e9nien parmi eux. Proclus lui-m\u00eame \u00e9tait lycien, Syrianus, alexandrin. C\u2019est plut\u00f4t un signe de la sant\u00e9 de ses institutions qu\u2019Ath\u00e8nes p\u00fbt encore attirer des \u00e9trangers de valeur !\r\n\r\nJe voudrais sugg\u00e9rer, en effet, que bien loin que ce f\u00fbt l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie qui f\u00fbt sur son lit de mort en 529, c\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019\u00e9cole d\u2019Alexandrie qui \u00e9tait en d\u00e9clin apr\u00e8s la mort d\u2019Ammonius, alors que l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie reprenait vie.\r\n\r\nLes successeurs d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie furent Eutocius le math\u00e9maticien et Olympiodore, philosophes, ni l\u2019un ni l\u2019autre de grande envergure. Tandis que vers 529, l\u2019\u00e9nergique et habile Damascius avait repris en main l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et s\u2019\u00e9tait entour\u00e9 d\u2019une \u00e9quipe de disciples d\u00e9vou\u00e9s \u2014 d\u00e9vou\u00e9s, car nous savons qu\u2019ils le suivirent en Perse apr\u00e8s la fermeture de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nUne illustration frappante de ce changement de relation entre Ath\u00e8nes et Alexandrie est le fait que, alors que dans ses premiers commentaires Olympiodore d\u00e9pendait essentiellement d\u2019Ammonius, dans ses derni\u00e8res \u0153uvres, il s\u2019appuie de plus en plus sur Damascius. Nous saisissons, l\u00e0 encore, Alexandrie se tournant vers Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nIl se peut que Justinien n\u2019ait pas ferm\u00e9 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie par m\u00e9pris, parce qu\u2019elle \u00e9tait moribonde, mais \u2014 et c\u2019est une raison plus naturelle et plus plausible \u2014 par crainte, parce qu\u2019elle reprenait vie. [introduction p. 281-283]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WEx2IgLff0lYEzl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":23,"full_name":"Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1258,"section_of":1257,"pages":"281-290","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1257,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le N\u00e9oplatonisme: Actes du Colloque International sur le N\u00e9oplatonisme organis\u00e9 dans le cadre des Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique \u00e0 Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Schuhl_Hadot1971","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The book is a valuable resource for scholars and students of Neoplatonism, providing a comprehensive overview of the history and development of this important philosophical tradition. It is divided into three main sections. The first section focuses on the historical development of Neoplatonism, tracing its origins in the philosophy of Plato and its development through the works of Plotinus, Proclus, and other Neoplatonic thinkers. The second section explores the relationship between Neoplatonism and other philosophical traditions, such as Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The third section examines the influence of Neoplatonism on literature and Christianity. [introduction]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3Ys5KdoaAlOHE6L","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1257,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La fin de l'Ac\u00e1demie"]}
Title | La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Entrer en matière. Les prologues |
Pages | 209-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Dubois, Jean-Daniel , Roussel, Bernard |
Translator(s) |
La philosophie néoplatonicienne a développé une doctrine de la relation pédagogique entre le Maître (image visible du Bien) et les étudiants (âmes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la définition même de la philosophie comme « assimilation à Dieu », et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'exégèse et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du « prologue » s*entend en trois sens 1) la représentation de la philosophie comme unité organique assigne à la logique aristotélicienne un statut de « commencement », à titre de « partie instrumentale » ; et le traité des Catégories est, à l'intérieur de cette « partie instrumentale », et au début du cursus néoplatonicien des études, le « proème » delà logique et de la philosophie tout entière ; 2) il existe d'autre part un véritable « genre littéraire » des introductions exégétiques, caractérisé par des schémas scolastiques de questions préalables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'emboîtement de plusieurs introductions : à la philosophie en général, à la philosophie d'Aristote, à la philosophie de Platon, à chaque œuvre particulière de Porphyre (Isagogè), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque œuvre singulière, les prologues exégétiques (et les commentaires eux-mêmes) peuvent comporter une description ou une légitimation du prologue de l'œuvre commentée : c'est le cas pour le traité aristotélicien des Catégories. L'application de critères rhétoriques d'origine platonicienne conduit à s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'œuvre commentée avec l'œuvre elle-même envisagée comme totalité organique. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qogll7IhtIDqqda |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"685","_score":null,"_source":{"id":685,"authors_free":[{"id":1016,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1017,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":188,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel","free_first_name":"Jean-Daniel","free_last_name":"Dubois","norm_person":{"id":188,"first_name":"Jean-Daniel ","last_name":"Dubois","full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/104137304X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1018,"entry_id":685,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":189,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Roussel, Bernard","free_first_name":"Bernard","free_last_name":"Roussel","norm_person":{"id":189,"first_name":"Bernard ","last_name":"Roussel","full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032386932","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne","main_title":{"title":"La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"},"abstract":"La philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne a d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 une doctrine de la relation p\u00e9dagogique entre le Ma\u00eetre (image visible du Bien) et les \u00e9tudiants (\u00e2mes imparfaites), qui se fonde sur la d\u00e9finition m\u00eame de la philosophie comme \u00ab assimilation \u00e0 Dieu \u00bb, et qui inscrit dans une perspective anagogique la pratique de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et de l'enseignement. Dans un tel cadre, la question du \u00ab prologue \u00bb s*entend en trois sens 1) la repr\u00e9sentation de la philosophie comme unit\u00e9 organique assigne \u00e0 la logique aristot\u00e9licienne un statut de \u00ab commencement \u00bb, \u00e0 titre de \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb ; et le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories est, \u00e0 l'int\u00e9rieur de cette \u00ab partie instrumentale \u00bb, et au d\u00e9but du cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien des \u00e9tudes, le \u00ab pro\u00e8me \u00bb del\u00e0 logique et de la philosophie tout enti\u00e8re ; 2) il existe d'autre part un v\u00e9ritable \u00ab genre litt\u00e9raire \u00bb des introductions ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques, caract\u00e9ris\u00e9 par des sch\u00e9mas scolastiques de questions pr\u00e9alables ; et l'organisation du cursus commence par l'embo\u00eetement de plusieurs introductions : \u00e0 la philosophie en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, \u00e0 la philosophie d'Aristote, \u00e0 la philosophie de Platon, \u00e0 chaque \u0153uvre particuli\u00e8re de Porphyre (Isagog\u00e8), d'Aristote et de Platon ; 3) enfin, dans le cadre de l'explication de chaque \u0153uvre singuli\u00e8re, les prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et les commentaires eux-m\u00eames) peuvent comporter une description ou une l\u00e9gitimation du prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e : c'est le cas pour le trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories. L'application de crit\u00e8res rh\u00e9toriques d'origine platonicienne conduit \u00e0 s'interroger sur la fonction et la liaison organique de ce prologue de l'\u0153uvre comment\u00e9e avec l'\u0153uvre elle-m\u00eame envisag\u00e9e comme totalit\u00e9 organique. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qogll7IhtIDqqda","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":188,"full_name":"Dubois, Jean-Daniel ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":189,"full_name":"Roussel, Bernard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":685,"section_of":371,"pages":"209-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Entrer en mati\u00e8re. Les prologues","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dubois1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"Vingt-huit auteurs ont \u00e9tudi\u00e9 les pages introductives d'oeuvres philosophiques et th\u00e9ologiques de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et du Moyen Age, de Bibles et de commentaires, manuscrits et imprim\u00e9s, r\u00e9dig\u00e9s par des juifs et des chr\u00e9tiens jusqu'au XVIIe si\u00e8cle. Ils montrent comment ces pages d\u00e9finissent des \"orientations herm\u00e9neutiques\", des \"protocoles de lecture\" ou encore tissent des liens avec les lecteurs. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GzDhLGjpBoVziqc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":371,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre d\u2019\u00c9tudes des Religions du Livre, Cerf","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La fonction des prologues ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques dans la pens\u00e9e p\u00e9dagogique n\u00e9oplatonicienne"]}
Title | La postérité arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique |
Pages | 240-264 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vallat, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"828","_score":null,"_source":{"id":828,"authors_free":[{"id":1229,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1230,"entry_id":828,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pjkBxNt8HyD0f6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":828,"section_of":74,"pages":"240-264","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La post\u00e9rit\u00e9 arabe du commentaire de Simplicius sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"]}
Title | La relation chez Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 113-147 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Luna, Concetta |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/B73LnGwsUzauanV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1116","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1116,"authors_free":[{"id":1685,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1686,"entry_id":1116,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La relation chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La relation chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"This text is about Simplicius' doctrine of the relation. Although Simplicius did not dedicate a specific treatise to the relation, his views can be reconstructed from his commentary on Aristotle's Categories and certain passages in his commentary on Physics. Simplicius' approach to the Categories builds upon a rich tradition of commentaries, and he offers both questions and solutions in his own commentary. The author argues that Simplicius' elaboration of the concept of relation is not necessarily original, but his writings present a valuable contribution to the clarification of the concept. The text also discusses other traditions of reflection on the categories, such as those of the Academy and the Stoics. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/B73LnGwsUzauanV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1116,"section_of":171,"pages":"113-147","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La relation chez Simplicius"]}
Title | La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse |
Pages | 239-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Baghdassarian, Fabienne |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1325,"authors_free":[{"id":1959,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2380,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comn\u00e8ne. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1325,"section_of":1327,"pages":"239-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M6C8JJNritLlEmQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
Title | La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'Épictète du XVe au XVII siècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 326-367 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' "Handbook," resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' "Handbook" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"519","_score":null,"_source":{"id":519,"authors_free":[{"id":724,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":725,"entry_id":519,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth","main_title":{"title":"La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"},"abstract":"The survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" from the 15th to the 17th centuries can be observed from two perspectives. Firstly, there is a focus on the preservation and dissemination of the text itself through printing and translation. However, this study concentrates on the second aspect, which concerns the philosophical content of the commentary. The examination of its philosophical content has aided in understanding Epictetus' \"Handbook,\" resolving certain philosophical problems, and demonstrating the convergence between Platonism and Christianity.The philosophical importance of Simplicius' commentary is exemplified by the work of various scholars, such as Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, and Cudworth. They draw on Simplicius' ideas to address and resolve philosophical questions. For instance, Cudworth uses Simplicius' assertion that the principle of movement must move itself and be without parts or extension to argue for the existence of a spiritual substance. Cudworth further highlights how Simplicius perfectly expresses the Platonic idea of the soul's self-motion, where it moves not according to bodily or local movements but according to the movements of the soul, such as examination, volition, thought, and opinion. Overall, the survival of Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' \"Handbook\" throughout this period has not only contributed to a better understanding of the text itself but also enriched philosophical discussions and fostered connections between Platonism and Christianity. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YBJwmhRAfIkqrD5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":519,"section_of":171,"pages":"326-367","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La survie du Commentaire de Simplicius sur le manual d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te du XVe au XVII si\u00e8cles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith, Cudworth"]}
Title | La teoria dell’intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teofilo Zimara |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2013 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | De Carli, Manuel |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mNF1lCUefItzKac |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1475,"authors_free":[{"id":2556,"entry_id":1475,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":545,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"De Carli, Manuel","free_first_name":"Manuel","free_last_name":"De Carli","norm_person":{"id":545,"first_name":"Manuel","last_name":"De Carli","full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara","main_title":{"title":"La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara"},"abstract":"This paper describes the doctrine of the intellect developed by the physician and philosopher Teofilo Zimara in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, published in 1584 by the Giuntas, identifying the Platonism and Neoplatonism of Simplicius as the main features of his psychology. The essay then points out how Zimara's speculative suggestion fully inscribes itself in the disputes between Simplicianists and Averroists, which erupted within the School of Padua and then spread to other centers of culture of that time, forming an essential element of Aristotelianism in the sixteenth century. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mNF1lCUefItzKac","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":545,"full_name":"De Carli, Manuel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1475,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rinascimento meridionale","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":["La teoria dell\u2019intelletto e il confronto con Simplicio nel commento al De anima di Teo\ufb01lo Zimara"]}
Title | La triade chaldaïque ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: De Proclus à Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink |
Pages | 459-489 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Segonds, A. Ph. , Steel, Carlos , Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.) , Luna, Concetta (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
L'analyse des textes montre que dans l’œuvre de Simplicius s'établit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire à la Physique et la prière finale du Commentaire au De caelo. Selon l’ordre néoplatonicien de lecture des traités d'Aristote, la Physique précède le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgré un ordre chronologique de composition inverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-à-dire par une sorte de continuité intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - l’absence d’une prière à la fin du Commentaire à la Physique, en considérant que la prière finale de l'In De caelo couronne à la fois ces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une polémique contre l'impiété de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'exégète - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu’à une forme d'union avec le corps céleste et avec le Démiurge, c’est-à-dire jusqu'à une « sympathie » donatrice de félicité? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos évoqué dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Catégories, tandis qu'un fil thématique précis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"681","_score":null,"_source":{"id":681,"authors_free":[{"id":1009,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1010,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":196,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","free_first_name":"A. Ph. ","free_last_name":"Segonds","norm_person":{"id":196,"first_name":"A. Ph. ","last_name":"Segonds","full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031742743","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2039,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2395,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":461,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mettraux, A. F. (Coll.)","free_first_name":"A. F.","free_last_name":"Mettraux","norm_person":{"id":461,"first_name":"A. F.","last_name":"Mettraux","full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2396,"entry_id":681,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":458,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Luna, Concetta (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Concetta","free_last_name":"Luna","norm_person":{"id":458,"first_name":"Concetta","last_name":"Luna","full_name":"Luna, Concetta","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1153489031","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'analyse des textes montre que dans l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius s'\u00e9tablit une correspondance ferme entre le prologue de son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique et la pri\u00e8re finale du Commentaire au \r\nDe caelo. Selon l\u2019ordre n\u00e9oplatonicien de lecture des trait\u00e9s d'Aristote, la Physique pr\u00e9c\u00e8de le De caelo. Ne peut-on, dans ces conditions, et malgr\u00e9 un ordre chronologique de composition in\u00adverse, expliquer par une raison de fond - c'est-\u00e0-dire par une sorte de continuit\u00e9 intentionnelle entre les deux ouvrages - \r\nl\u2019absence d\u2019une pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin du Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, en consid\u00e9rant que la pri\u00e8re finale de l'In De caelo couronne \u00e0 la fois \r\nces deux commentaires, puisque l'un comme l'autre instruisent une pol\u00e9mique contre l'impi\u00e9t\u00e9 de Jean Philopon, et font remonter l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8te - et avec lui ses lecteurs - jusqu\u2019\u00e0 une forme d'union avec le corps c\u00e9leste et avec le D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire jusqu'\u00e0 une \r\n\u00ab sympathie \u00bb donatrice de f\u00e9licit\u00e9? Ainsi se trouve atteint le telos \u00e9voqu\u00e9 dans le prologue du Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories, tandis qu'un fil th\u00e9matique pr\u00e9cis unit les trois Commentaires de Simplicius sur Aristote. [conclusion, p. 489]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Z6GulpIldCyTgq3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":196,"full_name":"Segonds, A. Ph.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":461,"full_name":"Mettraux, A. F. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":458,"full_name":"Luna, Concetta","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":681,"section_of":369,"pages":"459-489","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":369,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Proclus et la th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13 -16 mai 1998). En l'honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Segonds2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"In his Platonic Theology, Proclus offers a systematic exposition of the theology of Plato. Integrating within the \u2018scienti-fic\u2019 framework of the Parmenides all the theological doctrines which are scattered throughout the Plato\u2019s dialogues, Proclus develops the Platonic doctrines on the One, the gods and the hierarchical procession of reality.\r\n\r\nThe present volume, which celebrates the completion of the critical edition of Proclus\u2019 Platonic Theology by H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink (+), contains thirty-one contributions by leading scholars in the field of Neoplatonic studies. They present their views on the organisation and principles of Proclus\u2019 theology, on the hermeneutics of Platonic dialogues, on the antecedents of this theological synthesis, and on its posterity, from Proclus\u2019 immediate successors through the Byzantine, Arabic and Latin Middle Ages.\r\n\r\nThis monumental volume, which is the result of three decades of dedicated scholarly research on the philosophy of Proclus, will stand for many years as an indispensable guide for all those interested in Neoplatonic studies. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SbKzMkxqkUtsN6U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":369,"pubplace":"Leuven - Paris","publisher":"Leuven University Press - Paris Les Belles Lettres","series":"Ancient and medieval philosophy, Series 1","volume":"26","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La triade chalda\u00efque \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2: De Proclus \u00e0 Simplicius"]}
Title | La vie et l’œuvre de Simplicius d’après des sources grecques et arabes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 3-39 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des œuvres de Simplicius. Nous sont conservés : les commentaires sur le Manuel d’Epictète, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Catégories, probablement sur le De anima d’Aristote. Sont perdus, mais attestés de façon plus ou moins sûre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide, un commentaire sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote, un commentaire sur l’ouvrage de Jamblique consacré à la secte des Pythagoriciens, une Épitomé de la Physique de Théophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, où se trouve un renvoi à cette œuvre, est authentique), et peut-être un commentaire sur la Techné d’Hermogène. [conclusion p. 39] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":522,"authors_free":[{"id":728,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":729,"entry_id":522,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes","main_title":{"title":"La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"},"abstract":"Voici donc les conclusions auxquelles on peut aboutir au sujet des \u0153uvres de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNous sont conserv\u00e9s : les commentaires sur le Manuel d\u2019Epict\u00e8te, sur le De caelo, sur la Physique, sur les Cat\u00e9gories, probablement sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nSont perdus, mais attest\u00e9s de fa\u00e7on plus ou moins s\u00fbre : un commentaire sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, un commentaire sur l\u2019ouvrage de Jamblique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la secte des Pythagoriciens, une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (si le commentaire sur le De anima, o\u00f9 se trouve un renvoi \u00e0 cette \u0153uvre, est authentique), et peut-\u00eatre un commentaire sur la Techn\u00e9 d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne. [conclusion p. 39]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUSQYbD2Vn7RuIp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":522,"section_of":171,"pages":"3-39","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius d\u2019apr\u00e8s des sources grecques et arabes"]}
Title | Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 127-157 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Griffin, Michael |
Editor(s) | Benedikt Strobel |
Translator(s) |
This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher—or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as ἐξηγητής—to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or ἔννοιαι of the student or philosopher. (I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or ἔννοιαι might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the "great texts" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius’ attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices. I focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490–c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (ἐξηγητής) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23–29), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as "research" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus’ Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87–90); Simplicius’ interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way. In both these areas—discovery and pedagogy—I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the "greats" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (ἔννοιαι) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10–13, 4). [introduction p. 127-128] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1546","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1546,"authors_free":[{"id":2702,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":null},{"id":2812,"entry_id":1546,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Benedikt Strobel","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education","main_title":{"title":"Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education"},"abstract":"This paper sets out to explore the Sitz im Leben of late ancient philosophical pedagogy and research from a common vantage point: the capacity of a good teacher\u2014or a canonical text, read with a good teacher as \u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2\u2014to reshape and correct the elementary concepts or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 of the student or philosopher.\r\n\r\n(I) I begin with a brief reflection on the intersection of pedagogical practice and inquiry in antiquity, then (II) briefly explore the theme of how common notions or \u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 might be shaped and reshaped by the philosopher who comes into contact with the \"great texts\" of the past or with a good teacher, in Plotinus and Simplicius, and (III) conclude by considering the historical background of Simplicius\u2019 attitude to past philosophers, and to what extent it might be considered as informed by earlier Aristotelian or Stoic practices.\r\n\r\nI focus on the interface between philosophical education and research in the commentator Simplicius of Cilicia (c. 490\u2013c. 560 CE). Simplicius is well known as an interpreter (\u1f10\u03be\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ae\u03c2) of the formative texts of Hellenic philosophy (a function whose qualifications he outlines at In Cat. 7, 23\u201329), and he regards the philosophical commentary as an important vehicle for what we might regard as \"research\" or inquiry into an array of subjects. Simplicius also treats commentary as a useful tool for pedagogy. A student who reads a book like Epictetus\u2019 Handbook may advance in virtue (Simp., In Epict. pr. 87\u201390); Simplicius\u2019 interpretation is a useful guide, a facilitator on the way.\r\n\r\nIn both these areas\u2014discovery and pedagogy\u2014I try to outline a common psychological theory underlying the function attributed to the commentator: A pupil who engages in dialectic with a teacher, or with the \"greats\" of the past, may recover the natural, undistorted concepts (\u1f14\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9) that were her birthright before they were distorted by the fall of the soul and the rattle and hum of our quotidian experience (illustrated by Simplicius in an evocative passage at In Cat. 12, 10\u201313, 4). [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1546,"section_of":289,"pages":"127-157","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Language Converts Psyche: Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research and Education"]}
Title | Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in età tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi |
Pages | 175-185 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Moreschini, Claudio |
Translator(s) |
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin : Hiéroclès et Simplicius¹, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien. Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la métripathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats. Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant)². Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif³, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius⁴, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens. Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique⁵ et Proclus⁶. David (Élias), pour sa part, nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate⁷, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète⁸, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προστακτικαί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. [introduction p. 51-52] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1498","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1498,"authors_free":[{"id":2598,"entry_id":1498,"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}},{"id":2599,"entry_id":1498,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":556,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","free_first_name":"Claudio","free_last_name":"Moreschini","norm_person":{"id":556,"first_name":"Claudio","last_name":"Moreschini","full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028672292","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel","main_title":{"title":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin : Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius\u00b9, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien.\r\n\r\nIl s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la m\u00e9tripathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant)\u00b2.\r\n\r\nMais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif\u00b3, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius\u2074, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nLes trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens.\r\n\r\nLa derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique\u2075 et Proclus\u2076. David (\u00c9lias), pour sa part, nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate\u2077, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te\u2078, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af).\r\n\r\nNous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. [introduction p. 51-52]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uXmnTeKsGQf7VkO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":556,"full_name":"Moreschini, Claudio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1498,"section_of":1497,"pages":"175-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1497,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Esegesi, parafrasi e compilazione in et\u00e0 tardoantica: atti del terzo Convegno dell'Associazione di studi tardoantichi","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Moreschini1995","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TdVasyOFO7lHMY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1497,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"M. D'Auria","series":"Collectanea (D'Auria)","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le Commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019Epictete comme Exercice Spirituel"]}
Title | Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interprétation néoplatonicienne de « ce qui dépend de nous » |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 103-125 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or προαίρεσις), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of "what depends on us" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"948","_score":null,"_source":{"id":948,"authors_free":[{"id":1421,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1422,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1423,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1424,"entry_id":948,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' commentary on the first chapter of Epictetus' Manual, focusing selectively on a specific part of its development. The commentary examines the initial two sentences of the chapter, addressing the distinction between things within human control and those beyond it. This division leads to a classification of rational souls into first souls, which remain consistently oriented towards the Good, and human rational souls. The latter are characterized by their capacity for choice (deliberate choice or \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), which is absent in immobile entities and irrational beings. Simplicius emphasizes that the nature of human rational souls allows them to either align with higher ontological realities or be drawn towards lower ones. The freedom of choice extends even to choosing evil, albeit often misguided by the appearance of apparent good. The concept of \"what depends on us\" is explicated as referring specifically to this deliberate choice. Simplicius' Neoplatonic interpretation culminates in a discussion defending human free will against objections that attribute actions to chance or necessity. While the commentary is not complete, this abstract concludes with the clarification that Simplicius' ontological exposition pertains solely to human rational souls. Further elaboration on objections and responses is anticipated in subsequent sections of the commentary. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JFuHmZlhN11cPr4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":948,"section_of":218,"pages":"103-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre du Manuel : interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne de \u00ab ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \u00bb"]}
Title | Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 47-87 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Dans mon livre Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius, j’ai expliqué d’une manière détaillée la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète dans l’enseignement néoplatonicien. Il s’agissait de répondre à la question suivante : Comment le néoplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du stoïcien Épictète, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristotélicienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l’argumentation développée que j’ai donnée dans mon livre et je me borne à en résumer ici les principaux résultats. Les néoplatoniciens étaient persuadés qu’il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les études de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette manière purifié son âme, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C’est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (Élias) dans les introductions à leurs commentaires sur les Catégories d’Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualités requises du bon auditeur (ou étudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pré-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Catégories l’expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une catéchèse purement parénétique, sans démonstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l’œuvre d’Aristote, par laquelle commençaient les études philosophiques des néoplatoniciens. Les traités d’Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de démonstrations, dont la compréhension présuppose la maîtrise de la méthode apodictique, que le débutant en philosophie ne possède pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les Éthiques d’Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction éthique préparatoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme écrite ou non écrite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La dernière allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le célèbre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement été commenté par les néoplatoniciens Hiéroclès, Jamblique et Proclus. David (Élias) pour sa part nomme les parénèses d’Isocrate, visant de toute évidence les discours À Démonicos et À Nicoclès. Or, au début de son commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète, Simplicius précise que le genre littéraire de cet ouvrage est celui des « courtes sentences » et des « maximes morales », et il ajoute que ce genre littéraire est analogue à celui que les pythagoriciens appellent préceptes (προτρεπτικοί). Nous pouvons donc être assurés de tenir là le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d’Épictète. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d’exhortations non techniques aptes à fournir l’instruction éthique préparatoire dont le débutant en philosophie devait déjà être imprégné. Dès lors, il fallait qu’il interprète le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l’éthique stoïcienne culminant dans l’apatheia du sage stoïcien, comme cela aurait été normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En procédant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le système éthique néoplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d’une manière tout à fait étonnante et sans jointure apparente, l’éthique du stoïcisme, évidemment sans ses bases matérialistes, l’éthique de l’Ancienne Académie et l’éthique péripatéticienne. Le néoplatonisme avait admis en effet, à partir de Porphyre, l’existence de quatre degrés de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus « politiques » ou « civiles » ou « pratiques », impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c’est-à-dire la metriopathie péripatéticienne. En revanche, les degrés de vertu supérieurs se fondaient sur l’apatheia stoïcienne. Comme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s’adressaient à des débutants, cette œuvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la préparation au premier degré des vertus, donc aux vertus « civiles » ou « politiques » régies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caractérisent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropriées, comme leur nom l’indique, au citoyen vertueux, c’est-à-dire à quelqu’un qui prend activement part à la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d’après les péripatéticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe néoplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou même les vertus théorétiques. L’homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l’explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-même, c’est-à-dire sur son âme raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-même, donc vers son âme raisonnable, de vouloir réaliser cette « conversion », est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu’un qui est désormais désireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c’est à ce genre d’hommes que s’adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxième partie du Manuel (à partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s’agit pas de ceux qui seraient déjà en possession des vertus cathartiques ni même des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progrès vers l’acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagnée de l’étude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la même la première condition pour pouvoir plus tard, après s’être longuement familiarisés avec les études philosophiques, acquérir les vertus cathartiques. Le Manuel d’Épictète s’adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une première partie, à ceux qui n’ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer à purifier leurs mœurs et leur âme, autrement dit, à soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles à la raison. La deuxième partie concernerait ceux qui ont déjà fait des progrès sur le chemin qui mène à la domination des passions et commencent à s’intéresser à la philosophie elle-même. Dans les deux cas, il s’agit de débutants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s’initier à la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JJVi9durYJt0iuG |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"782","_score":null,"_source":{"id":782,"authors_free":[{"id":1148,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1149,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1150,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1151,"entry_id":782,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"},"abstract":"Dans mon livre Le probl\u00e8me du n\u00e9oplatonisme alexandrin: Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s et Simplicius, j\u2019ai expliqu\u00e9 d\u2019une mani\u00e8re d\u00e9taill\u00e9e la place que tenait le commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te dans l\u2019enseignement n\u00e9oplatonicien. Il s\u2019agissait de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 la question suivante : Comment le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius pouvait-il se sentir la vocation de commenter le Manuel du sto\u00efcien \u00c9pict\u00e8te, et, qui plus est, dans la perspective de la metriopathie aristot\u00e9licienne ? Je ne peux reprendre l\u2019argumentation d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e que j\u2019ai donn\u00e9e dans mon livre et je me borne \u00e0 en r\u00e9sumer ici les principaux r\u00e9sultats.\r\n\r\nLes n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e9taient persuad\u00e9s qu\u2019il fallait, pour pouvoir commencer avec profit les \u00e9tudes de philosophie proprement dites, avoir acquis auparavant certaines dispositions morales et avoir de cette mani\u00e8re purifi\u00e9 son \u00e2me, au moins dans une certaine mesure. C\u2019est ce que nous expliquent Simplicius, Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore et David (\u00c9lias) dans les introductions \u00e0 leurs commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, dans un chapitre traitant des qualit\u00e9s requises du bon auditeur (ou \u00e9tudiant). Mais pour cette formation morale pr\u00e9-philosophique, il fallait, comme Simplicius et les autres commentateurs des Cat\u00e9gories l\u2019expliquent dans un autre chapitre introductif, une instruction qui soit une cat\u00e9ch\u00e8se purement par\u00e9n\u00e9tique, sans d\u00e9monstrations logiques. Comme le disent Simplicius et Ammonius, une telle instruction ne se trouve pas dans l\u2019\u0153uvre d\u2019Aristote, par laquelle commen\u00e7aient les \u00e9tudes philosophiques des n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote sont remplis de divisions et de d\u00e9monstrations, dont la compr\u00e9hension pr\u00e9suppose la ma\u00eetrise de la m\u00e9thode apodictique, que le d\u00e9butant en philosophie ne poss\u00e8de pas. Ce ne sont donc pas les \u00c9thiques d\u2019Aristote qui peuvent fournir une instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire, continue Simplicius, mais des exhortations non techniques sous forme \u00e9crite ou non \u00e9crite, comme on en trouve beaucoup chez les pythagoriciens. La derni\u00e8re allusion de Simplicius vise certainement les sentences pythagoriciennes et le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre Carmen aureum, qui a effectivement \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 par les n\u00e9oplatoniciens Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s, Jamblique et Proclus. David (\u00c9lias) pour sa part nomme les par\u00e9n\u00e8ses d\u2019Isocrate, visant de toute \u00e9vidence les discours \u00c0 D\u00e9monicos et \u00c0 Nicocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nOr, au d\u00e9but de son commentaire sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que le genre litt\u00e9raire de cet ouvrage est celui des \u00ab courtes sentences \u00bb et des \u00ab maximes morales \u00bb, et il ajoute que ce genre litt\u00e9raire est analogue \u00e0 celui que les pythagoriciens appellent pr\u00e9ceptes (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af). Nous pouvons donc \u00eatre assur\u00e9s de tenir l\u00e0 le motif du choix que Simplicius avait fait du Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Aux yeux de Simplicius, le Manuel constituait le genre d\u2019exhortations non techniques aptes \u00e0 fournir l\u2019instruction \u00e9thique pr\u00e9paratoire dont le d\u00e9butant en philosophie devait d\u00e9j\u00e0 \u00eatre impr\u00e9gn\u00e9. D\u00e8s lors, il fallait qu\u2019il interpr\u00e8te le Manuel en se fondant, non pas sur l\u2019\u00e9thique sto\u00efcienne culminant dans l\u2019apatheia du sage sto\u00efcien, comme cela aurait \u00e9t\u00e9 normal selon notre point de vue moderne, mais sur la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne.\r\n\r\nEn proc\u00e9dant de la sorte, Simplicius suit le syst\u00e8me \u00e9thique n\u00e9oplatonicien, dans lequel se fondent, d\u2019une mani\u00e8re tout \u00e0 fait \u00e9tonnante et sans jointure apparente, l\u2019\u00e9thique du sto\u00efcisme, \u00e9videmment sans ses bases mat\u00e9rialistes, l\u2019\u00e9thique de l\u2019Ancienne Acad\u00e9mie et l\u2019\u00e9thique p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. Le n\u00e9oplatonisme avait admis en effet, \u00e0 partir de Porphyre, l\u2019existence de quatre degr\u00e9s de vertus, dont le premier, celui des vertus \u00ab politiques \u00bb ou \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab pratiques \u00bb, impliquait, non pas la suppression des passions, mais leur domination par la raison, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire la metriopathie p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne. En revanche, les degr\u00e9s de vertu sup\u00e9rieurs se fondaient sur l\u2019apatheia sto\u00efcienne.\r\n\r\nComme Simplicius voyait dans le Manuel des exhortations morales non techniques, qui s\u2019adressaient \u00e0 des d\u00e9butants, cette \u0153uvre ne pouvait, selon lui, viser que la pr\u00e9paration au premier degr\u00e9 des vertus, donc aux vertus \u00ab civiles \u00bb ou \u00ab politiques \u00bb r\u00e9gies par la metriopathie. Les vertus civiles ne sont pas des vertus qui caract\u00e9risent le philosophe authentique, mais elles sont appropri\u00e9es, comme leur nom l\u2019indique, au citoyen vertueux, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire \u00e0 quelqu\u2019un qui prend activement part \u00e0 la vie publique et qui a pour cela, d\u2019apr\u00e8s les p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, besoin de son corps et dans une certaine mesure de ses passions. Les vertus propres au philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien sont les vertus cathartiques ou m\u00eame les vertus th\u00e9or\u00e9tiques.\r\n\r\nL\u2019homme qui vit selon les vertus cathartiques fuit, comme Simplicius l\u2019explique, le corps et les passions irrationnelles autant que possible et il se concentre sur lui-m\u00eame, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire sur son \u00e2me raisonnable. Le fait de vouloir se tourner exclusivement vers soi-m\u00eame, donc vers son \u00e2me raisonnable, de vouloir r\u00e9aliser cette \u00ab conversion \u00bb, est reconnu plus loin par Simplicius comme la marque de quelqu\u2019un qui est d\u00e9sormais d\u00e9sireux de pratiquer la philosophie, et c\u2019est \u00e0 ce genre d\u2019hommes que s\u2019adresse, selon Simplicius, la deuxi\u00e8me partie du Manuel (\u00e0 partir du chapitre 22). Il ne s\u2019agit pas de ceux qui seraient d\u00e9j\u00e0 en possession des vertus cathartiques ni m\u00eame des vertus civiles, mais de ceux qui, forts de leur progr\u00e8s vers l\u2019acquisition des vertus civiles, envisagent leur retraite de la vie publique, accompagn\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00e9tude et de la pratique de la philosophie, et qui remplissent par la m\u00eame la premi\u00e8re condition pour pouvoir plus tard, apr\u00e8s s\u2019\u00eatre longuement familiaris\u00e9s avec les \u00e9tudes philosophiques, acqu\u00e9rir les vertus cathartiques.\r\n\r\nLe Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te s\u2019adresse donc, selon Simplicius, dans une premi\u00e8re partie, \u00e0 ceux qui n\u2019ont encore aucune formation philosophique, mais qui souhaitent commencer \u00e0 purifier leurs m\u0153urs et leur \u00e2me, autrement dit, \u00e0 soumettre leurs passions irrationnelles \u00e0 la raison. La deuxi\u00e8me partie concernerait ceux qui ont d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait des progr\u00e8s sur le chemin qui m\u00e8ne \u00e0 la domination des passions et commencent \u00e0 s\u2019int\u00e9resser \u00e0 la philosophie elle-m\u00eame. Dans les deux cas, il s\u2019agit de d\u00e9butants : de ceux qui commencent une formation morale et de ceux qui veulent s\u2019initier \u00e0 la philosophie. [introduction p. 51-54]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JJVi9durYJt0iuG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":782,"section_of":218,"pages":"47-87","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te"]}
Title | Le début d’une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 143-169 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. , Raalte, Marlein van |
Translator(s) |
Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d’Aristote comporte trois mentions de Théophraste, dont une brève référence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous possédons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages dérivent du premier livre de la Physique de Théophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre général de l’ouvrage de Théophraste (« dans son propre traité physique »), 144B précise : « au début de ses livres physiques ». La citation de Théophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins précise, mais en l’occurrence parfaitement adéquate (puisque l’extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A/B) : « dans le premier livre de ses traités physiques ». Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du traité d’Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour première tâche à la science physique de déterminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite immédiate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre « ce qui est plus connu pour nous » et « ce qui est plus connu par nature ». Les éditeurs ont mis 142/143 en tête, sans doute parce que, énonçant des propositions méthodologiques sur le statut de l’enquête physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les préalables, alors que 144A/B mettent déjà en jeu des propositions physiques particulières. Mais ceci peut avoir été un effet de l’exégèse de Théophraste, fortement marquée, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance systématisante. À condition d’inverser l’ordre adopté par les éditeurs (c’est-à-dire d’admettre que le fragment cité dans 144B précédait dans l’original celui que rapporte 143), l’ensemble offre les linéaments d’un commentaire continu de la première page de la Physique d’Aristote. L’analyse qui suit tente d’en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"883","_score":null,"_source":{"id":883,"authors_free":[{"id":1298,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1299,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1300,"entry_id":883,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein van","free_last_name":"Raalte","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"},"abstract":"Le commentaire de Simplicius au premier chapitre de la Physique d\u2019Aristote comporte trois mentions de Th\u00e9ophraste, dont une br\u00e8ve r\u00e9f\u00e9rence (142 FHS&G) et deux citations textuelles (143 et 144B). Nous poss\u00e9dons en outre une paraphrase de la seconde citation dans la partie correspondante du commentaire de Philopon (144A). Nous avons toutes les raisons de penser que ces quatre passages d\u00e9rivent du premier livre de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste. Si 144A mentionne seulement le titre g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de l\u2019ouvrage de Th\u00e9ophraste (\u00ab dans son propre trait\u00e9 physique \u00bb), 144B pr\u00e9cise : \u00ab au d\u00e9but de ses livres physiques \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLa citation de Th\u00e9ophraste, en 143, est introduite par la mention moins pr\u00e9cise, mais en l\u2019occurrence parfaitement ad\u00e9quate (puisque l\u2019extrait, comme nous le verrons dans un instant, suivait sans doute 144A\/B) : \u00ab dans le premier livre de ses trait\u00e9s physiques \u00bb. Le contenu corrobore ces indications. 144A\/B concerne en effet le paragraphe initial du trait\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote (Physique, 184a10-16), qui assigne pour premi\u00e8re t\u00e2che \u00e0 la science physique de d\u00e9terminer quels en sont les principes ; 142 et 143 portent sur la suite imm\u00e9diate (184a16-b14), qui introduit la distinction entre \u00ab ce qui est plus connu pour nous \u00bb et \u00ab ce qui est plus connu par nature \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLes \u00e9diteurs ont mis 142\/143 en t\u00eate, sans doute parce que, \u00e9non\u00e7ant des propositions m\u00e9thodologiques sur le statut de l\u2019enqu\u00eate physique, ils peuvent sembler poser les pr\u00e9alables, alors que 144A\/B mettent d\u00e9j\u00e0 en jeu des propositions physiques particuli\u00e8res. Mais ceci peut avoir \u00e9t\u00e9 un effet de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Th\u00e9ophraste, fortement marqu\u00e9e, comme nous le verrons plus loin, par une tendance syst\u00e9matisante. \u00c0 condition d\u2019inverser l\u2019ordre adopt\u00e9 par les \u00e9diteurs (c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire d\u2019admettre que le fragment cit\u00e9 dans 144B pr\u00e9c\u00e9dait dans l\u2019original celui que rapporte 143), l\u2019ensemble offre les lin\u00e9aments d\u2019un commentaire continu de la premi\u00e8re page de la Physique d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nL\u2019analyse qui suit tente d\u2019en restituer les traits saillants. [introduction p. 143-144]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yDW08T1lG0G9q6B","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":883,"section_of":1298,"pages":"143-169","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le d\u00e9but d\u2019une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A\/B de Th\u00e9ophraste"]}
Title | Le dédicataire d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d’après le Fihrist d’Ibn al-Nadīm |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique |
Pages | 102-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vallat, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"829","_score":null,"_source":{"id":829,"authors_free":[{"id":1231,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":498,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vallat, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Vallat","norm_person":{"id":498,"first_name":"Philippe","last_name":"Vallat","full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1232,"entry_id":829,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm","main_title":{"title":"Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FUC3RJY9ty0CDoV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":498,"full_name":"Vallat, Philippe\t ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":829,"section_of":74,"pages":"102-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":74,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un Bilan critique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"This book offers a synthesis of modern research devoted to Simplicius's life and to three of his five commentaries: On Epictetus' Handbook, On Aristotle's De anima, On Aristotle's Categories. Its biographical part brings to light the historical role played by this Neoplatonic philosopher. Born in Cilicia, Asia Minor, he studied in Alexandria and Athens and apparently ended his life teaching in Syria on the frontier between the Byzantine and Sassanide Empires. His role was that of a mediator between the Greco-Roman world and philosophy and Syriac philosophy, which would feed Arabic philosophy at its beginning. The second part of the book, devoted to doctrinal and authorship issues, also deals with the underlying pedagogical curriculum and methods proper to Neoplatonic commentaries, which modern interpretation all too often tends to neglect in studies on Simplicius and other Neoplatonists. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R8AdHRdKYfqtT76","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":74,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le d\u00e9dicataire d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur le De anima d\u2019apr\u00e8s le Fihrist d\u2019Ibn al-Nad\u012bm"]}
Title | Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'école d'Athènes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Mélanges Gilbert Dagron |
Pages | 21-35 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Beauchamp, Joëlle |
Editor(s) | Déroche, Vincent |
Translator(s) |
The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1457","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1457,"authors_free":[{"id":2490,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":503,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","free_first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","free_last_name":"Beauchamp","norm_person":{"id":503,"first_name":"Jo\u00eblle","last_name":"Beauchamp","full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2491,"entry_id":1457,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":504,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","free_first_name":"Vincent","free_last_name":"D\u00e9roche","norm_person":{"id":504,"first_name":"Vincent","last_name":"D\u00e9roche","full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033332305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes","main_title":{"title":"Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes"},"abstract":"The closing of the Neoplatonic school of Athens and the two sources (John Malalas and Agathias) on the basis of which this event has been reconstructed have provoked numerous commentaries and queries. However, one element in the narrative of Malalas has apparently escaped notice. By connecting this element with two texts from the Code of Justinian, the author proposes the date of 22 September 529 for the imperial legislation forbidding the teaching of philosophy in Athens. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/o4RX5UFx8ZQlU6Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":503,"full_name":"Beauchamp, Jo\u00eblle","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":504,"full_name":"D\u00e9roche, Vincent","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1457,"section_of":280,"pages":"21-35","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":280,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"M\u00e9langes Gilbert Dagron","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Dagron2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/srVCI6CLDNJR4nL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":280,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Association des Amis du Centre d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","series":"Travaux et m\u00e9moires \/ Coll\u00e8ge de France, Centre de Recherche d'Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le philosophe et le joueur. La date de la fermeture de l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes"]}
Title | Le problème des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Les problèmes posés par l'édition critique des textes anciens et médiévaux |
Pages | 361-397 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand |
Editor(s) | Hamesse, Jacqueline |
Translator(s) |
Un des problèmes qui peuvent encombrer l’édition critique des commentaires anciens et médiévaux sur les grands traités qui ont fait autorité dans les écoles (traités d’Aristote, de Galien, de Ptolémée, etc.) concerne la manière dont les lemmes ou références au texte commenté doivent être présentés ; car bien qu’en règle générale on aperçoive assez vite si l’auteur a effectivement inséré des références pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d’une fois peu concordantes, voire très confuses. La forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu’en tête d’un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section commentée ou recourir à un système de lemmes abrégés, dont les principaux types seront énumérés ci-après. Mais ce qu’il importe de remarquer avant tout, c’est qu’en raison même de leur fonction de référence, les lemmes doivent être bien distingués des commentaires eux-mêmes ; le commentateur, s’il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les écrire en caractères un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secrétaire ou son éditeur de les écrire en rouge. Placés en tête des commentaires pour en faciliter l’étude et bien distingués de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont très exposés aux tentatives de remaniement et d’adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ultérieurs. Il peut paraître utile à un savant ou à un éditeur d’avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage commenté tout entier, en remplaçant ou complétant les lemmes abrégés écrits par l’auteur, ou d’assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organisé du commentaire, en ajoutant après les premiers mots du passage commenté, écrits par l’auteur, la formule jusqu’à, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent être abrégés par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a passé la commande possède déjà le traité commenté. Ainsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie très souvent d’un manuscrit à l’autre, voire d’une partie à l’autre à l’intérieur d’un même manuscrit, et l’éditeur d’un commentaire devra se mettre à la recherche de la forme que l’auteur lui-même leur a donnée. Cette préoccupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne mérite pas d’être considérée comme une sorte de surenchère critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement liée à une autre, bien plus importante, à savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme témoins indirects du texte commenté. Si l’étude critique révèle que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont été refaits, on ne sera plus tenté de penser que leur texte reflète l’état du texte commenté à l’époque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remaniées ou ajoutées ; seules les parties primitives seront jugées à même de nous informer sur le texte lu et cité par le commentateur, bien que là encore la facilité d’une adaptation ultérieure doive nous inciter à la prudence. De toute évidence, l’étude des lemmes ne présente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du traité commenté, mais seulement dans les cas où le commentateur est reconnu à juste titre comme un témoin très précieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d’Aristote) ou tout à fait privilégié du texte commenté. Mais même en dehors de cette perspective, l’étude des lemmes se révèle plus d’une fois très fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la méthode utilisée par le commentateur, mais encore sur la manière dont les commentaires ont été préparés et organisés pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous mène de temps à autre à des découvertes tout à fait inattendues. Le but du présent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux étaient complètement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1076","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1076,"authors_free":[{"id":1630,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1631,"entry_id":1076,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":13,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","free_first_name":"Jacqueline ","free_last_name":"Hamesse","norm_person":{"id":13,"first_name":"Jacqueline ","last_name":"Hamesse","full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132262746","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Un des probl\u00e8mes qui peuvent encombrer l\u2019\u00e9dition critique des commentaires anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux sur les grands trait\u00e9s qui ont fait autorit\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles (trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, de Galien, de Ptol\u00e9m\u00e9e, etc.) concerne la mani\u00e8re dont les lemmes ou r\u00e9f\u00e9rences au texte comment\u00e9 doivent \u00eatre pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s ; car bien qu\u2019en r\u00e8gle g\u00e9n\u00e9rale on aper\u00e7oive assez vite si l\u2019auteur a effectivement ins\u00e9r\u00e9 des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences pareilles, les informations concernant leur forme et leur texte sont plus d\u2019une fois peu concordantes, voire tr\u00e8s confuses.\r\n\r\nLa forme des lemmes peut varier pour la raison qu\u2019en t\u00eate d\u2019un commentaire on peut citer in extenso toute la section comment\u00e9e ou recourir \u00e0 un syst\u00e8me de lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s, dont les principaux types seront \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9s ci-apr\u00e8s. Mais ce qu\u2019il importe de remarquer avant tout, c\u2019est qu\u2019en raison m\u00eame de leur fonction de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, les lemmes doivent \u00eatre bien distingu\u00e9s des commentaires eux-m\u00eames ; le commentateur, s\u2019il est attentif, prendra soin de les souligner ou de les \u00e9crire en caract\u00e8res un peu plus gros, ou il chargera son secr\u00e9taire ou son \u00e9diteur de les \u00e9crire en rouge.\r\n\r\nPlac\u00e9s en t\u00eate des commentaires pour en faciliter l\u2019\u00e9tude et bien distingu\u00e9s de ceux-ci, les lemmes, par contrecoup, sont tr\u00e8s expos\u00e9s aux tentatives de remaniement et d\u2019adaptation de la part des utilisateurs ult\u00e9rieurs. Il peut para\u00eetre utile \u00e0 un savant ou \u00e0 un \u00e9diteur d\u2019avoir ou de mettre sous les yeux le passage comment\u00e9 tout entier, en rempla\u00e7ant ou compl\u00e9tant les lemmes abr\u00e9g\u00e9s \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, ou d\u2019assurer au moins un usage plus facile et mieux organis\u00e9 du commentaire, en ajoutant apr\u00e8s les premiers mots du passage comment\u00e9, \u00e9crits par l\u2019auteur, la formule jusqu\u2019\u00e0, suivie des derniers mots de celui-ci. Inversement, les lemmes complets peuvent \u00eatre abr\u00e9g\u00e9s par un copiste, par exemple si le savant qui a pass\u00e9 la commande poss\u00e8de d\u00e9j\u00e0 le trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9.\r\n\r\nAinsi donc, la forme des lemmes varie tr\u00e8s souvent d\u2019un manuscrit \u00e0 l\u2019autre, voire d\u2019une partie \u00e0 l\u2019autre \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un m\u00eame manuscrit, et l\u2019\u00e9diteur d\u2019un commentaire devra se mettre \u00e0 la recherche de la forme que l\u2019auteur lui-m\u00eame leur a donn\u00e9e. Cette pr\u00e9occupation de retrouver la forme primitive ne m\u00e9rite pas d\u2019\u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une sorte de surench\u00e8re critique. Il se peut, en effet, que la question de la forme des lemmes soit intimement li\u00e9e \u00e0 une autre, bien plus importante, \u00e0 savoir celle de la valeur des lemmes comme t\u00e9moins indirects du texte comment\u00e9. Si l\u2019\u00e9tude critique r\u00e9v\u00e8le que les lemmes sous telle ou telle forme ont \u00e9t\u00e9 refaits, on ne sera plus tent\u00e9 de penser que leur texte refl\u00e8te l\u2019\u00e9tat du texte comment\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque du commentateur, du moins pas dans les parties remani\u00e9es ou ajout\u00e9es ; seules les parties primitives seront jug\u00e9es \u00e0 m\u00eame de nous informer sur le texte lu et cit\u00e9 par le commentateur, bien que l\u00e0 encore la facilit\u00e9 d\u2019une adaptation ult\u00e9rieure doive nous inciter \u00e0 la prudence.\r\n\r\nDe toute \u00e9vidence, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes ne pr\u00e9sente pas partout une pareille importance pour la critique textuelle du trait\u00e9 comment\u00e9, mais seulement dans les cas o\u00f9 le commentateur est reconnu \u00e0 juste titre comme un t\u00e9moin tr\u00e8s pr\u00e9cieux (par exemple les commentateurs Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Ammonius, Jean Philopon, Simplicius pour le texte d\u2019Aristote) ou tout \u00e0 fait privil\u00e9gi\u00e9 du texte comment\u00e9. Mais m\u00eame en dehors de cette perspective, l\u2019\u00e9tude des lemmes se r\u00e9v\u00e8le plus d\u2019une fois tr\u00e8s fructueuse : la recherche de la forme primitive peut nous instruire non pas seulement sur la m\u00e9thode utilis\u00e9e par le commentateur, mais encore sur la mani\u00e8re dont les commentaires ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9par\u00e9s et organis\u00e9s pour en faciliter la lecture et la consultation, et de cette sorte, elle nous m\u00e8ne de temps \u00e0 autre \u00e0 des d\u00e9couvertes tout \u00e0 fait inattendues.\r\n\r\nLe but du pr\u00e9sent article est de montrer comment une analyse minutieuse des lemmes latins du De caelo, contenus dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De caelo de Simplicius, nous a mis sur la voie de trois recensions du De caelo, dont deux \u00e9taient compl\u00e8tement inconnues auparavant. [introduction p. 361-362]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Db9PyA6a27u1SM5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":13,"full_name":"Hamesse, Jacqueline ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1076,"section_of":278,"pages":"361-397","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":278,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hamesse1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"La meilleure mani\u00e8re d'introduire aux probl\u00e8mes pos\u00e9s par l'\u00e9dition critique des textes anciens et m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux est de pr\u00e9senter une s\u00e9rie de cas concrets illustrant les difficult\u00e9s inh\u00e9rentes \u00e0 ce type de travail et la complexit\u00e9 des \u00e9l\u00e9ments \u00e0 prendre en consid\u00e9ration. Les aspects \u00e0 traiter sont multiples. L'accent a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de tenir compte du contexte historique qui a conditionn\u00e9 la transmission de l'oeuvre et des facteurs mat\u00e9riels qui sont intervenus dans la tradition. Appel a \u00e9t\u00e9 fait \u00e0 diff\u00e9rents sp\u00e9cialistes ayant rencontr\u00e9 des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques dans leurs travaux. Le volume contient des articles qui pr\u00e9sentent l'exp\u00e9rience de chercheurs qualifi\u00e9s dans des domaines pr\u00e9cis et qui mettent l'accent sur le point de vue m\u00e9thodologique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1sNOomXw6buIlXz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":278,"pubplace":"Louvain-la-Neuve","publisher":"Institute d'Etudes M\u00e9di\u00e9vales","series":"Textes, \u00c9tudes, Congr\u00e8s","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le probl\u00e8me des lemmes du De caelo dans la traduction latine du commentaire In De Caelo de Simplicius"]}
Title | Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1982 |
Published in | Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet |
Pages | 277-280 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile , Goulet, Richard , O’Brien, Denis |
Translator(s) |
Les écoles néoplatoniciennes postérieures ont établi un programme d’enseignement qu’on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales étapes de ce cursus : a) Propédeutique morale : Étude de textes comme le Manuel d’Épictète et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces œuvres étaient souvent accompagnées de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hiéroclès. b) Introduction générale à la philosophie : Basée sur l'Isagogè de Porphyre, cette étape proposait une définition et des divisions de la philosophie (théorétique et pratique), suivant un schéma attribué à Porphyre ou Andronicus. c) Étude préparatoire à Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagogè comme introduction indispensable aux Catégories d’Aristote, en appliquant un cadre méthodologique précis avant d’entamer le commentaire. d) Introduction à Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Catégories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses écrits, et les qualités requises pour ses lecteurs et exégètes. e) Cycle d’études aristotéliciennes : Études couvrant logique, éthique, politique, physique et théologie sur une durée estimée à deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle préparait les étudiants à l’étude des dialogues platoniciens. f) Étude de Platon : Introduction systématique à Platon, incluant l’ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s’inspirait également des médio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos. g) Oracles chaldaïques : Étudiés comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d’autres néoplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon. h) Poésie orphique : Considérée comme le niveau suprême, la poésie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l’objet de commentaires approfondis, particulièrement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":534,"authors_free":[{"id":754,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2105,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":18,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":{"id":18,"first_name":"Luc","last_name":"Brisson","full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114433259","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2106,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2107,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2108,"entry_id":534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O\u2019Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O\u2019Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes","main_title":{"title":"Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"},"abstract":"Les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes post\u00e9rieures ont \u00e9tabli un programme d\u2019enseignement qu\u2019on peut reconstituer dans ses grandes lignes. Voici quelles sont les principales \u00e9tapes de ce cursus : a) Prop\u00e9deutique morale : \u00c9tude de textes comme le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te et le Carmen aureum pythagoricien pour introduire la vie morale. Ces \u0153uvres \u00e9taient souvent accompagn\u00e9es de commentaires, notamment par Simplicius et Hi\u00e9rocl\u00e8s.\r\n\r\nb) Introduction g\u00e9n\u00e9rale \u00e0 la philosophie : Bas\u00e9e sur l'Isagog\u00e8 de Porphyre, cette \u00e9tape proposait une d\u00e9finition et des divisions de la philosophie (th\u00e9or\u00e9tique et pratique), suivant un sch\u00e9ma attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Porphyre ou Andronicus.\r\n\r\nc) \u00c9tude pr\u00e9paratoire \u00e0 Aristote : Lecture et commentaire de l'Isagog\u00e8 comme introduction indispensable aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote, en appliquant un cadre m\u00e9thodologique pr\u00e9cis avant d\u2019entamer le commentaire.\r\n\r\nd) Introduction \u00e0 Aristote : Les commentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories soulevaient dix questions essentielles sur Aristote, incluant son style, la structure de ses \u00e9crits, et les qualit\u00e9s requises pour ses lecteurs et ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes.\r\n\r\ne) Cycle d\u2019\u00e9tudes aristot\u00e9liciennes : \u00c9tudes couvrant logique, \u00e9thique, politique, physique et th\u00e9ologie sur une dur\u00e9e estim\u00e9e \u00e0 deux ou trois ans. Ce cycle pr\u00e9parait les \u00e9tudiants \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des dialogues platoniciens.\r\n\r\nf) \u00c9tude de Platon : Introduction syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 Platon, incluant l\u2019ordre de lecture des dialogues. Cette phase s\u2019inspirait \u00e9galement des m\u00e9dio-platoniciens comme Albinus et Alcinoos.\r\n\r\ng) Oracles chalda\u00efques : \u00c9tudi\u00e9s comme le sommet de la formation philosophique. Proclus et d\u2019autres n\u00e9oplatoniciens harmonisaient ces enseignements avec ceux de Platon.\r\n\r\nh) Po\u00e9sie orphique : Consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme le niveau supr\u00eame, la po\u00e9sie orphique, notamment les Hymnes, faisait l\u2019objet de commentaires approfondis, particuli\u00e8rement chez Proclus et Syrianus. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kPjIT5NBhbhdLeA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":18,"full_name":"Brisson, Luc ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":534,"section_of":377,"pages":"277-280","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":377,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Porphyre. La vie de Plotin. Travaux pr\u00e9liminaires et index grec complet","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1982","abstract":"Il est apparu que le dernier mot n'avait pas \u00e9t\u00e9 dit sur ce texte de Porphyre, capital pour notre connaissance de la personne et de l'\u00e9cole de Plotin, et plus largement de la vie philosophique au IIIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re. Car on est en pr\u00e9sence d'un document dont la simplicit\u00e9 est illusoire : la traduction m\u00eame en est h\u00e9riss\u00e9e de difficult\u00e9s, qui, dans nombre de cas, semblent avoir jusqu'ici \u00e9chapp\u00e9 \u00e0 l'attention ; d'autre part, la valeur historique de cette biographie, indubitable en apparence, ne cesse en v\u00e9rit\u00e9 de faire probl\u00e8me par suite de l'application de Porphyre \u00e0 se donner en toute circonstance le beau r\u00f4le.\r\nDe telles consid\u00e9rations, et d'autres encore, ont donn\u00e9 \u00e0 penser que l'on ne perdrait pas son temps en reprenant l'\u00e9tude de ce vieux texte sur des bases enti\u00e8rement nouvelles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dg4i4rIRJWOzIZa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":377,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"6","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le programme d'enseignement dans les Ecoles neoplatoniciennes"]}
Title | Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps vécu, temps pensé |
Pages | 223-234 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise , Lozachmeur, Hélène |
Translator(s) |
Cette enquête rapide a fait apparaître cinq thèses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure confère l’unité à ce qu’elle rassemble, et le fait participer, à son niveau, de l’Un lui-même ; 2. le temps, image de l’éternité (Platon), est l ’une des « mesures rassemblantes » qui sauvent le sensible du désastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la « mesure de l’extension (paratasis) de l’être » ; 3. le temps est une quantité continue (Aristote), et il est mesuré par des mesures naturelles intrinsèques ; 4. la catégorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantité, est définie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-même, ou à ses « mesures naturelles » ; 5. ainsi est pensée la datation d ’un événement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les événements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du Péloponnèse ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"677","_score":null,"_source":{"id":677,"authors_free":[{"id":997,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":998,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":190,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise","free_last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","norm_person":{"id":190,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7oise ","last_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet","full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138558841","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":999,"entry_id":677,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":191,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","free_last_name":"Lozachmeur","norm_person":{"id":191,"first_name":"H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","last_name":"Lozachmeur","full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cette enqu\u00eate rapide a fait appara\u00eetre cinq th\u00e8ses fondamentales : 1. toute mesure conf\u00e8re l\u2019unit\u00e9 \u00e0 ce qu\u2019elle rassemble, et le fait participer, \u00e0 son niveau, de l\u2019Un lui-m\u00eame ; 2. le temps, image de l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 (Platon), est l \u2019une des \u00ab mesures rassemblantes \u00bb qui sauvent le sensible du d\u00e9sastre ontologique ; il est, plus proprement, la \u00ab mesure de l\u2019extension (paratasis) de l\u2019\u00eatre \u00bb ; 3. le temps est une quantit\u00e9 continue (Aristote), et il est mesur\u00e9 par des mesures naturelles intrins\u00e8ques ; 4. la cat\u00e9gorie du pote, qui est distincte du temps et de la quantit\u00e9, est d\u00e9finie par une pure relation non convertible au temps lui-m\u00eame, ou \u00e0 ses \u00ab mesures naturelles \u00bb ; 5. ainsi est pens\u00e9e la datation d \u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement historique (comme la bataille de Salamine), tandis que la taxis agissante du temps ordonne, conjoint et distingue les \u00e9v\u00e9nements historiques (la guerre de Troie et la guerre du P\u00e9loponn\u00e8se ne se confondent pas). [conclusion, p. 234]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Bux3xGV4iDU4pJh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":190,"full_name":"Briquel-Chatonnet, Fran\u00e7oise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":191,"full_name":"Lozachmeur, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":677,"section_of":366,"pages":"223-234","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proche-Orient Ancien. Temps v\u00e9cu, temps pens\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Briquel-Chatonnet1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1998","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5BD9RWhwMU84oxi","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":366,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Maisonneuve","series":"Antiquit\u00e9s s\u00e9mitiques","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Le temps comme mesure et la mesure du temps selon Simplicius"]}
Title | Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès |
Pages | 209-248 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe |
Translator(s) |
Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”. Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition : "[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]". Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”. L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein). Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction. Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”). La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique. Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ? La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione. Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
Title | Les bibliothèques philosophiques d’après le témoignage de la littérature néoplatonicienne des Ve et VIe siècles |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 135-153 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
L’enquête que nous venons de mener est semée d’incertitudes, et elle est souvent aporétique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent être tirées de façon prudente. L’enseignement dispensé dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses propédeutiques jusqu’à l’étude des poèmes “révélés”, impliquait l’usage de livres – le programme pouvant être interprété comme une sorte de “catalogue idéal”. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s’être accompagnée, dans certains cas du moins, d’un usage de manuscrits – sans doute de grand format – dans les marges desquels étaient consignés des développements exégétiques (et l’on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d’écriture pouvait être alors utilisé : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours à une micrographie, comme dans l’exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copié pour Aréthas vers 900 ?). Sur certains dossiers, comme celui de l’origine des modèles de la “Collection philosophique” (la bibliothèque de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progressé, mettant en lumière le rôle probable de Stéphanos d’Alexandrie dans le transfert à Constantinople, au début du VIIᵉ siècle, des modèles tardo-antiques de la Collection. Cet exemple montre que l’on peut attendre, au gré des recherches, un progrès de nos connaissances, par-delà les considérations souvent hypothétiques qui ont été ici présentées. [conclusion p. 152-153] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"502","_score":null,"_source":{"id":502,"authors_free":[{"id":694,"entry_id":502,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":695,"entry_id":502,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles","main_title":{"title":"Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"},"abstract":"L\u2019enqu\u00eate que nous venons de mener est sem\u00e9e d\u2019incertitudes, et elle est souvent apor\u00e9tique. Mais quelques conclusions peuvent \u00eatre tir\u00e9es de fa\u00e7on prudente.\r\n\r\nL\u2019enseignement dispens\u00e9 dans les \u00e9coles n\u00e9oplatoniciennes suivait un programme qui, depuis les diverses prop\u00e9deutiques jusqu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude des po\u00e8mes \u201cr\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s\u201d, impliquait l\u2019usage de livres \u2013 le programme pouvant \u00eatre interpr\u00e9t\u00e9 comme une sorte de \u201ccatalogue id\u00e9al\u201d. La pratique du commentaire, essentielle dans ces milieux, semble s\u2019\u00eatre accompagn\u00e9e, dans certains cas du moins, d\u2019un usage de manuscrits \u2013 sans doute de grand format \u2013 dans les marges desquels \u00e9taient consign\u00e9s des d\u00e9veloppements ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques (et l\u2019on aimerait mieux savoir quel type d\u2019\u00e9criture pouvait \u00eatre alors utilis\u00e9 : faut-il imaginer parfois un recours \u00e0 une micrographie, comme dans l\u2019exemple byzantin du Vaticanus Urbinas gr. 35, copi\u00e9 pour Ar\u00e9thas vers 900 ?).\r\n\r\nSur certains dossiers, comme celui de l\u2019origine des mod\u00e8les de la \u201cCollection philosophique\u201d (la biblioth\u00e8que de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie ?), la recherche a progress\u00e9, mettant en lumi\u00e8re le r\u00f4le probable de St\u00e9phanos d\u2019Alexandrie dans le transfert \u00e0 Constantinople, au d\u00e9but du VII\u1d49 si\u00e8cle, des mod\u00e8les tardo-antiques de la Collection.\r\n\r\nCet exemple montre que l\u2019on peut attendre, au gr\u00e9 des recherches, un progr\u00e8s de nos connaissances, par-del\u00e0 les consid\u00e9rations souvent hypoth\u00e9tiques qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ici pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es. [conclusion p. 152-153]","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Yfl8Gt8Sgf5xdCH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":502,"section_of":37,"pages":"135-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les biblioth\u00e8ques philosophiques d\u2019apr\u00e8s le t\u00e9moignage de la litt\u00e9rature n\u00e9oplatonicienne des Ve et VIe si\u00e8cles"]}
Title | Les calendriers en usage à Harran d’après les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 40-57 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tardieu, Michel |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
L’ordre des saisons adopté par Simplicius pour énumérer et classer les calendriers groupe d’abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l’Athènes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n’était en usage qu’à l’Académie. Mais, à la différence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus écrivant la biographie de son maître, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de fêtes et de rites, était réalité hors de l’enceinte de l’Académie, dans la société harrânienne. Le calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l’École platonicienne de Harrân ne se différenciait du calendrier luni-solaire local hérité de la colonisation macédonienne que par son début d’année et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l’un à l’autre n’offrait aucune difficulté. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville. L’hémérologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle année du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier académique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l’Hémerologion et al-Hàsimî transmettent respectivement les noms macédoniens et araméens. L’exemple des débuts d’année, développé par Simplicius, offre un déroulement du temps harrânien à quatre entrées festives, comme l’a bien noté al-Bîrünî. L’année académique des Platoniciens, réglée sur le solstice d’été (calendrier attique), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Hekatombaiôn, qui correspondait respectivement au 1ᵉʳ Lôos (Éphèse), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes). L’année civile et religieuse de la ville, réglée sur l’équinoxe d’automne (calendrier asiate), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Dios/Tišrîn al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1ᵉʳ Puanepsiôn (Athéniens). L’année civile et religieuse de l’Empire, réglée sur le solstice d’hiver (calendrier romain), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ janvier/Kânûn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gamêliôn (Athéniens), au 8 Peritios (Éphèse). L’année coutumière de la région, réglée sur l’équinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commençait au 1ᵉʳ Xanthikos/Nîsân, qui correspondait à la veille du 30 Elaphêboliôn (Athéniens), au 22 mars (Romains), et à la veille du 30 Xanthikos (Éphèse). La parenthèse sur les débuts d’année, ouverte par Simplicius à propos de l’exemple du début du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de consécution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels. Elle constitue le plus ancien témoignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-araméens de Harrân. Elle permet d’identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahsî, al-Hàsimî et Wahb. Elle confirme que c’est bien là, dans cette «ville bénie, parce que jamais souillée par l’erreur de Nazareth», que trouvèrent refuge les derniers Platoniciens après 533. Dans les calendriers de Wahb et d’al-Hâsimî, se côtoient pêle-mêle les noms de divinités babyloniennes, égyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncrétisme ne pouvait que faire bon ménage avec la religion de l’Académie. Selon l’objectif de l’École d’Athènes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d’être le thérapeute d’une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi être «l’hiérophante du monde entier». En s’installant à Harrân à leur retour d’Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l’endroit idéal pour réaliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TgVuqJv1CIhi085 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"475","_score":null,"_source":{"id":475,"authors_free":[{"id":640,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":331,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tardieu, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Tardieu","norm_person":{"id":331,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Tardieu","full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140490701","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":641,"entry_id":475,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"L\u2019ordre des saisons adopt\u00e9 par Simplicius pour \u00e9num\u00e9rer et classer les calendriers groupe d\u2019abord deux calendriers luni-solaires (attique et asiate), puis deux calendriers solaires (romain et arabe). Comme dans l\u2019Ath\u00e8nes de Proclus finissant, le premier de ces calendriers n\u2019\u00e9tait en usage qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie. Mais, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de la situation contemporaine de Marinus \u00e9crivant la biographie de son ma\u00eetre, la symbolique des lunaisons du calendrier attique, avec un cycle analogue de f\u00eates et de rites, \u00e9tait r\u00e9alit\u00e9 hors de l\u2019enceinte de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie, dans la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 harr\u00e2nienne.\r\n\r\nLe calendrier luni-solaire attique en usage dans l\u2019\u00c9cole platonicienne de Harr\u00e2n ne se diff\u00e9renciait du calendrier luni-solaire local h\u00e9rit\u00e9 de la colonisation mac\u00e9donienne que par son d\u00e9but d\u2019ann\u00e9e et les noms de ses mois. Le passage de l\u2019un \u00e0 l\u2019autre n\u2019offrait aucune difficult\u00e9. Plus besoin, comme le faisait Marinus, de julianiser artificiellement le nombre du jour du mois attique pour transcrire une date du calendrier de la ville.\r\n\r\nL\u2019h\u00e9m\u00e9rologe de Florence mettant la nouvelle ann\u00e9e du calendrier asiate le 23 septembre et Jean Lydus faisant partir le calendrier attique du 23 juin, il y avait totale correspondance du point de vue du jour du mois entre le calendrier acad\u00e9mique dont Lydus donne les noms attiques et le calendrier civil et religieux de la ville, dont l\u2019H\u00e9merologion et al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee transmettent respectivement les noms mac\u00e9doniens et aram\u00e9ens.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exemple des d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Simplicius, offre un d\u00e9roulement du temps harr\u00e2nien \u00e0 quatre entr\u00e9es festives, comme l\u2019a bien not\u00e9 al-B\u00eer\u00fcn\u00ee. L\u2019ann\u00e9e acad\u00e9mique des Platoniciens, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 (calendrier attique), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Hekatombai\u00f4n, qui correspondait respectivement au 1\u1d49\u02b3 L\u00f4os (\u00c9ph\u00e8se), au 23 juin (Romains), au 4 Panemos (Arabes).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de la ville, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe d\u2019automne (calendrier asiate), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Dios\/Ti\u0161r\u00een al-awwal, qui correspondait au 23 septembre (Romains), au 6 Gorpiaios (Arabes), au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Puanepsi\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e civile et religieuse de l\u2019Empire, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur le solstice d\u2019hiver (calendrier romain), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 janvier\/K\u00e2n\u00fbn II, qui correspondait au 16 Audunaios (Arabes), au 8 Gam\u00eali\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 8 Peritios (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nL\u2019ann\u00e9e coutumi\u00e8re de la r\u00e9gion, r\u00e9gl\u00e9e sur l\u2019\u00e9quinoxe vernal (calendrier arabe), y commen\u00e7ait au 1\u1d49\u02b3 Xanthikos\/N\u00ees\u00e2n, qui correspondait \u00e0 la veille du 30 Elaph\u00eaboli\u00f4n (Ath\u00e9niens), au 22 mars (Romains), et \u00e0 la veille du 30 Xanthikos (\u00c9ph\u00e8se).\r\n\r\nLa parenth\u00e8se sur les d\u00e9buts d\u2019ann\u00e9e, ouverte par Simplicius \u00e0 propos de l\u2019exemple du d\u00e9but du mois choisi par Aristote pour illustrer le concept de cons\u00e9cution temporelle, se referme sur trois acquis essentiels.\r\n\r\nElle constitue le plus ancien t\u00e9moignage connu sur les calendriers en usage chez les Greco-aram\u00e9ens de Harr\u00e2n. Elle permet d\u2019identifier, par leur origine historique et leur appartenance nationale, les calendriers fournis par al-Sarahs\u00ee, al-H\u00e0sim\u00ee et Wahb.\r\n\r\nElle confirme que c\u2019est bien l\u00e0, dans cette \u00abville b\u00e9nie, parce que jamais souill\u00e9e par l\u2019erreur de Nazareth\u00bb, que trouv\u00e8rent refuge les derniers Platoniciens apr\u00e8s 533.\r\n\r\nDans les calendriers de Wahb et d\u2019al-H\u00e2sim\u00ee, se c\u00f4toient p\u00eale-m\u00eale les noms de divinit\u00e9s babyloniennes, \u00e9gyptiennes, grecques, anatoliennes, syriennes et arabes. Un tel syncr\u00e9tisme ne pouvait que faire bon m\u00e9nage avec la religion de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie.\r\n\r\nSelon l\u2019objectif de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes, en effet, le philosophe ne devait se contenter d\u2019\u00eatre le th\u00e9rapeute d\u2019une seule ville, ou celui des coutumes de quelques peuples. Il lui fallait aussi \u00eatre \u00abl\u2019hi\u00e9rophante du monde entier\u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn s\u2019installant \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n \u00e0 leur retour d\u2019Iran, les compagnons de Damascius avaient choisi l\u2019endroit id\u00e9al pour r\u00e9aliser un tel programme. [conclusion p. 55-57]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TgVuqJv1CIhi085","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":331,"full_name":"Tardieu, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":475,"section_of":171,"pages":"40-57","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les calendriers en usage \u00e0 Harran d\u2019apr\u00e8s les sources arabes et le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion vues par Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 253-269 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vamvoukakis, Nicolas |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
L’analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les catégories aristotéliciennes d’action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d’«agir» et de «pâtir») est d’un intérêt multiple. Les notions mêmes sont d’une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le néoplatonisme tardif : en tant que catégories, elles désignent la mobilité, le dynamisme et la créativité de l’être ; en tant que réalités physiques ou métaphysiques désignées par ces mots, l’action et la passion sont directement liées à la théorie aristotélicienne de puissance, d’acte et de mouvement, et non moins à la problématique néoplatonicienne sur la Procession. L’importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l’utilité de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compréhension de la pensée aristotélicienne ; et cela d’autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux catégories d’action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristotélicien dans le traité des Catégories ne dépasse pas huit lignes. Par l’exposé exhaustif et raisonné de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux catégories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des problèmes sur l’action et la passion qu’Aristote aurait pu ou aurait dû se poser lui-même dans son discours sur les Catégories. Ainsi l’examen portera sur les caractères principaux de l’action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une catégorie à part, sur le problème de la réductibilité de ces deux catégories aux autres ou à une seule et sur leur division en espèces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur généralité, sont indiscutablement conformes à l’esprit de l’auteur du traité des Catégories ; mais lorsqu’on aborde leur examen détaillé dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent étonné par l’intrusion d’éléments, surtout spéculatifs, qui, en apparence, relèvent d’un mode de pensée complètement étranger à celui d’Aristote. Mais, en fait, une étude serrée du commentaire montre qu’il est possible (et même nécessaire, si l’on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer : les éléments purement aristotéliciens ; ceux qui, exprimés en termes néoplatoniciens, sont aisément transposables dans l’univers d’Aristote ; ceux qui prolongent la problématique aristotélicienne dans la perspective du néoplatonisme tardif. Ces prolongements ne sont pourtant pas dépourvus d’intérêt pour l’aristotélisme : en posant et en résolvant des problèmes qu’Aristote lui-même n’avait pas posés, mais qui, en dernière analyse, découlent de ses propres thèses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une réponse même si Aristote ne l’a pas donnée, on comprend beaucoup plus à fond toutes les ramifications de sa problématique ; et de même par l’examen des réponses proposées ou en essayant de répondre soi-même à la place d’Aristote. D’où il ressort que la bonne compréhension et l’appréciation juste d’un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote présupposent une connaissance adéquate de la philosophie aristotélicienne ainsi qu’une certaine expérience des traits particuliers à la pensée et à la sensibilité des néoplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas exégétiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase élaborée, mais, sans négliger les nuances, s’attaquent au cœur même des problèmes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articulées. [introduction p. 253-254] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O07AYBHdocDRTVL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"455","_score":null,"_source":{"id":455,"authors_free":[{"id":611,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":612,"entry_id":455,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"},"abstract":"L\u2019analyse du commentaire de Simplicius sur les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion (ou, plus exactement, d\u2019\u00abagir\u00bb et de \u00abp\u00e2tir\u00bb) est d\u2019un int\u00e9r\u00eat multiple. Les notions m\u00eames sont d\u2019une importance capitale aussi bien pour Aristote que pour le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif : en tant que cat\u00e9gories, elles d\u00e9signent la mobilit\u00e9, le dynamisme et la cr\u00e9ativit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre ; en tant que r\u00e9alit\u00e9s physiques ou m\u00e9taphysiques d\u00e9sign\u00e9es par ces mots, l\u2019action et la passion sont directement li\u00e9es \u00e0 la th\u00e9orie aristot\u00e9licienne de puissance, d\u2019acte et de mouvement, et non moins \u00e0 la probl\u00e9matique n\u00e9oplatonicienne sur la Procession.\r\n\r\nL\u2019importance du sujet fait du commentaire de Simplicius une bonne occasion pour manifester l\u2019utilit\u00e9 de ce genre de commentaires pour la meilleure compr\u00e9hension de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne ; et cela d\u2019autant plus que Simplicius consacre aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019action et de passion quarante pages de commentaire alors que le texte aristot\u00e9licien dans le trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ne d\u00e9passe pas huit lignes. Par l\u2019expos\u00e9 exhaustif et raisonn\u00e9 de tous les points de vue concernant ces deux cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius nous offre un tableau aussi complet que possible des probl\u00e8mes sur l\u2019action et la passion qu\u2019Aristote aurait pu ou aurait d\u00fb se poser lui-m\u00eame dans son discours sur les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nAinsi l\u2019examen portera sur les caract\u00e8res principaux de l\u2019action et de la passion, sur ce qui est le propre de chacune et justifie sa position comme une cat\u00e9gorie \u00e0 part, sur le probl\u00e8me de la r\u00e9ductibilit\u00e9 de ces deux cat\u00e9gories aux autres ou \u00e0 une seule et sur leur division en esp\u00e8ces. Toutes ces questions, prises dans leur g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9, sont indiscutablement conformes \u00e0 l\u2019esprit de l\u2019auteur du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories ; mais lorsqu\u2019on aborde leur examen d\u00e9taill\u00e9 dans le commentaire de Simplicius, on est souvent \u00e9tonn\u00e9 par l\u2019intrusion d\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9ments, surtout sp\u00e9culatifs, qui, en apparence, rel\u00e8vent d\u2019un mode de pens\u00e9e compl\u00e8tement \u00e9tranger \u00e0 celui d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nMais, en fait, une \u00e9tude serr\u00e9e du commentaire montre qu\u2019il est possible (et m\u00eame n\u00e9cessaire, si l\u2019on veut tirer le meilleur parti de ce texte) de distinguer :\r\n\r\n les \u00e9l\u00e9ments purement aristot\u00e9liciens ;\r\n ceux qui, exprim\u00e9s en termes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, sont ais\u00e9ment transposables dans l\u2019univers d\u2019Aristote ;\r\n ceux qui prolongent la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne dans la perspective du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif.\r\n\r\nCes prolongements ne sont pourtant pas d\u00e9pourvus d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat pour l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme : en posant et en r\u00e9solvant des probl\u00e8mes qu\u2019Aristote lui-m\u00eame n\u2019avait pas pos\u00e9s, mais qui, en derni\u00e8re analyse, d\u00e9coulent de ses propres th\u00e8ses, et auxquels on doit donc chercher une r\u00e9ponse m\u00eame si Aristote ne l\u2019a pas donn\u00e9e, on comprend beaucoup plus \u00e0 fond toutes les ramifications de sa probl\u00e9matique ; et de m\u00eame par l\u2019examen des r\u00e9ponses propos\u00e9es ou en essayant de r\u00e9pondre soi-m\u00eame \u00e0 la place d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nD\u2019o\u00f9 il ressort que la bonne compr\u00e9hension et l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation juste d\u2019un commentaire de Simplicius sur Aristote pr\u00e9supposent une connaissance ad\u00e9quate de la philosophie aristot\u00e9licienne ainsi qu\u2019une certaine exp\u00e9rience des traits particuliers \u00e0 la pens\u00e9e et \u00e0 la sensibilit\u00e9 des n\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs. Car ces commentaires ne sont pas ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques au sens, malheureusement si familier pour nous, de la paraphrase \u00e9labor\u00e9e, mais, sans n\u00e9gliger les nuances, s\u2019attaquent au c\u0153ur m\u00eame des probl\u00e8mes, sur lesquels ils proposent des solutions bien articul\u00e9es. [introduction p. 253-254]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O07AYBHdocDRTVL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":455,"section_of":302,"pages":"253-269","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019action et de passion vues par Simplicius"]}
Title | Les catégories aristotéliciennes ΠΟΤE et ΠΟΥ d’après le commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999 |
Pages | 355-376 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus’s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories ΠΟΤE and ΠΟΥ, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"679","_score":null,"_source":{"id":679,"authors_free":[{"id":1002,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1003,"entry_id":679,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile","free_last_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"},"abstract":"Simplicius aligns himself fundamentally with Porphyry and Jamblichus, preserving the tradition of responding to Plotinus\u2019s aporias on the Categories. He also reveals trends in the Peripatetic commentaries that Plotinus was reacting to. Simplicius demonstrates the specificity of the categories \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E and \u03a0\u039f\u03a5, using Jamblichus's definition of neo-Platonic skopos, which relies on a unity of meaning to establish the unity of a category corresponding to the unity of a genus. Despite being influenced by Jamblichus, Simplicius ultimately follows a philosophical orientation that aligns him with his master Damascius. [conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tGxagcX1ONlDUSI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":679,"section_of":269,"pages":"355-376","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes \u03a0\u039f\u03a4E et \u03a0\u039f\u03a5 d\u2019apr\u00e8s le commentaire de Simplicius. M\u00e9thode d\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et aspects doctrinaux"]}
Title | Les catégories ΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote et Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 217-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
L'exposé que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'étudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu’Aristote, dans son Traité des Catégories, nous donne sur les prédicats ποῦ et ποτέ, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La matière fournie par les textes aristotéliciens étant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius. Si les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c’est pourtant par rapport à eux, c'est-à-dire par différence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu’à titre secondaire, la méditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d’ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs antérieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux catégories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est considéré comme plus « proche » de l'essence, plus « apparenté » à elle, la catégorie ποῦ (ou la catégorie ποτέ) se situera plus près de l’ousia dans la liste des catégories. Tel étant le critère du classement, l'analyse catégoriale court toujours le risque d’être remplacée par une étude « physique » du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des catégories au niveau d’une étude des signifiés et des significations. Un second danger se présente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse catégoriale et l'analyse grammaticale des « parties du discours ». En effet, les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ correspondent presque exclusivement à deux classes d’adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps. Nous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compléments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit exposée dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives à cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guidé par l'idée d’une étroite parenté entre les catégories ποῦ et ποτέ, Simplicius étudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme modèle la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu. À la suite de Jamblique, il défend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la thèse soutenue par Aristote dans son Traité des Catégories : ποτέ et ποῦ sont des catégories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu relèvent de la quantité. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius établissent que ποῦ signifie « la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu », et ποτέ « la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps ». D'autre part, ποῦ et ποτέ se différencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux catégories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu à ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":508,"authors_free":[{"id":702,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":703,"entry_id":508,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"},"abstract":"L'expos\u00e9 que l'on va lire ne se propose pas d'\u00e9tudier les concepts de lieu ou de temps chez Aristote et son commentateur Simplicius, mais de scruter les quelques indications qu\u2019Aristote, dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, nous donne sur les pr\u00e9dicats \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, ou que l'on peut trouver dans certains passages de Physique IV. La mati\u00e8re fournie par les textes aristot\u00e9liciens \u00e9tant peu abondante, notre attention se portera principalement sur le Commentaire de Simplicius.\r\n\r\nSi les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad ne se confondent pas avec les concepts de lieu et de temps, c\u2019est pourtant par rapport \u00e0 eux, c'est-\u00e0-dire par diff\u00e9rence avec eux, qu'elles prennent sens et consistance. C'est pourquoi, et bien que ce ne soit qu\u2019\u00e0 titre secondaire, la m\u00e9ditation sur le temps et le lieu nourrit le commentaire de Simplicius, chez qui elle fonde (ainsi d\u2019ailleurs que chez nombre de commentateurs ant\u00e9rieurs) l'ordre relatif des deux cat\u00e9gories : selon que le temps ou le lieu est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme plus \u00ab proche \u00bb de l'essence, plus \u00ab apparent\u00e9 \u00bb \u00e0 elle, la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 (ou la cat\u00e9gorie \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad) se situera plus pr\u00e8s de l\u2019ousia dans la liste des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nTel \u00e9tant le crit\u00e8re du classement, l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale court toujours le risque d\u2019\u00eatre remplac\u00e9e par une \u00e9tude \u00ab physique \u00bb du temps ou du lieu. Mais Simplicius situe la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories au niveau d\u2019une \u00e9tude des signifi\u00e9s et des significations. Un second danger se pr\u00e9sente alors, qui est de confondre l'analyse cat\u00e9goriale et l'analyse grammaticale des \u00ab parties du discours \u00bb. En effet, les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad correspondent presque exclusivement \u00e0 deux classes d\u2019adverbes, qui sont, respectivement, les adverbes de lieu et les adverbes de temps.\r\n\r\nNous verrons que Simplicius, analysant et classant les significations des adverbes (et compl\u00e9ments) de lieu, ne fait que reprendre, sur ce point, la doctrine grammaticale classique, telle qu'on la voit expos\u00e9e dans la Grammaire de Denys le Thrace, dans les scholies relatives \u00e0 cette grammaire, ou chez un auteur comme Apollonius Dyscole. Guid\u00e9 par l'id\u00e9e d\u2019une \u00e9troite parent\u00e9 entre les cat\u00e9gories \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad, Simplicius \u00e9tudie les adverbes de temps en suivant comme mod\u00e8le la doctrine grammaticale des adverbes de lieu.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 la suite de Jamblique, il d\u00e9fend, contre les attaques de Plotin, la th\u00e8se soutenue par Aristote dans son Trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories : \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad et \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 sont des cat\u00e9gories distinctes et propres, tandis que temps et lieu rel\u00e8vent de la quantit\u00e9. Pour fonder cette distinction, Jamblique et Simplicius \u00e9tablissent que \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 signifie \u00ab la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu \u00bb, et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u00ab la relation au temps de ce qui est dans le temps \u00bb.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fe6 et \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad se diff\u00e9rencient des relatifs, en ce que la relation constitutive de ces derniers est convertible, ce qui n\u2019est pas le cas de la relation constitutive de ces deux cat\u00e9gories : il s'agit, par exemple, de la relation au lieu de ce qui est dans le lieu, et non de la relation du lieu \u00e0 ce qui est en lui. [introduction p. 217-218]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NQv0lwgedEPlhBo","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":508,"section_of":302,"pages":"217-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les cat\u00e9gories \u03a0\u039f\u0399 et \u03a0\u039f\u03a4\u0395 chez Aristote et Simplicius"]}
Title | Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diogène et la reconstruction de l’argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1983 |
Published in | Diogène d’Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et témoignages |
Pages | 37-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1188","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1188,"authors_free":[{"id":1760,"entry_id":1188,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)","main_title":{"title":"Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"},"abstract":"The article discusses the circumstances of the transmission of the fragments of Diogenes and the reconstruction of his argument by Simplicius in his Commentary on Physics. It highlights the significance of Simplicius' work in shedding light on the ancient philosopher, and explains how Simplicius came to cite Diogenes verbatim. The article also explores the issue of intermediaries in the texts and the difficulties in their construction. The study is important in understanding the history of philosophy and the transmission of ancient texts. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NoBGGFCfD4qd7PP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1188,"section_of":1367,"pages":"37-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1367,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie: Edition, traduction et commentaire des fragments et t\u00e9moignages","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laks2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Depuis la premi\u00e8re \u00e9dition de ce livre, Diog\u00e8ne d'Apollonie, un des derniers \"physiciens\" pr\u00e9socratiques, longtemps d\u00e9valoris\u00e9 par la r\u00e9putation d' \"\u00e9clectique\" que H. Diels avait attach\u00e9e \u00e0 son nom dans un article de 1881, a suscit\u00e9 un regain d'int\u00e9r\u00eat.\r\n\r\nCette seconde \u00e9dition d'un ouvrage qui reste \u00e0 ce jour le seul commentaire exhaustif des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages de Diog\u00e8ne, a \u00e9t\u00e9 revue et corrig\u00e9e, mais elle prend aussi en compte, dans une s\u00e9rie d'ajouts marqu\u00e9s comme tels, les travaux parus au cours des vint-cinq ann\u00e9es \u00e9coul\u00e9es. Le livre retrace l'histoire de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne, analyse les positions de la critique moderne depuis l'article s\u00e9minal de F. Schleiermacher (1811), et offre, pour chacun des douze fragments et des quelques trente-six t\u00e9moignages, dont un nouveau classement est propos\u00e9, une analyse visant \u00e0 reconstruire la logique de l'original perdu.\r\n\r\nQuatre des Notes additionnelles abordent des probl\u00e8mes sp\u00e9cifiques, qui requ\u00e9raient un traitement s\u00e9par\u00e9. Une cinqui\u00e8me, en anglais, offre une pr\u00e9sentation synth\u00e9tique de l'interpr\u00e9tation ici d\u00e9fendue, qui situe l'importance de Diog\u00e8ne dans son rapport \u00e0 Anaxagore et \u00e0 sa doctrine de l' \"intellect\". [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WWBP0kG5a0nZ1I3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1367,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"International Pre-Platonic Studies","volume":"6","edition_no":"2 (1st 1983)","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les circonstances de la transmission des fragments de Diog\u00e8ne et la reconstruction de l\u2019argument (Simplicius, Commentaire de la Physique, p. 148,26-153,24)"]}
Title | Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999 |
Pages | 377-386 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Dalimier, Catherine |
Editor(s) | Goulet- Cazé, Marie-Odile |
Translator(s) |
Cette étude vise à souligner – si nous n’en étions pas encore persuadés – toute la partialité de commentateurs qui se présentent pourtant comme les dépositaires soigneux d’une tradition. Elle s’applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Traité sur le ciel d’Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs antérieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains développements polémiques de ces commentateurs sont théologiquement motivés, par exemple leurs développements sur l’existence du cinquième élément et ceux qui concernent l’origine de l’univers ; mais, d’une façon plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur stratégie m’apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles où ils reformulent les raisonnements élaborés par Aristote. Cette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les préceptes donnés dans les ouvrages logiques d’Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprimés en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les prémisses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articulé par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques à celles d’Aristote, ni même présentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Traité sur le ciel, le caractère répétitif, fastidieux même de ces reformulations, accentué par la structure en abîme de ce traité particulier, la reprise de thèses d’un livre à l’autre, et la circularité de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n’y voir qu’une démonstration scolaire de virtuosité technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio à valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les présupposés théologiques et épistémiques du commentateur, présupposés particulièrement importants, s’agissant de la science difficile à classer qu’était l’astronomie dans l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 377-378] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1288","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1288,"authors_free":[{"id":1877,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":61,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","free_first_name":"Catherine","free_last_name":"Dalimier","norm_person":{"id":61,"first_name":"Catherine","last_name":"Dalimier","full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2337,"entry_id":1288,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":100,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet- Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile","free_first_name":"Marie-Odile ","free_last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":100,"first_name":"Marie-Odile ","last_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9","full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124602924","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Cette \u00e9tude vise \u00e0 souligner \u2013 si nous n\u2019en \u00e9tions pas encore persuad\u00e9s \u2013 toute la partialit\u00e9 de commentateurs qui se pr\u00e9sentent pourtant comme les d\u00e9positaires soigneux d\u2019une tradition. Elle s\u2019applique aux pages apparemment les plus neutres du long Commentaire de Simplicius au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel d\u2019Aristote, qui utilise et discute de nombreux commentaires grecs ant\u00e9rieurs. Il saute aux yeux que certains d\u00e9veloppements pol\u00e9miques de ces commentateurs sont th\u00e9ologiquement motiv\u00e9s, par exemple leurs d\u00e9veloppements sur l\u2019existence du cinqui\u00e8me \u00e9l\u00e9ment et ceux qui concernent l\u2019origine de l\u2019univers ; mais, d\u2019une fa\u00e7on plus radicale, leurs enjeux et leur strat\u00e9gie m\u2019apparaissent au niveau le plus plat de leur discours, dans les pages apparemment impersonnelles o\u00f9 ils reformulent les raisonnements \u00e9labor\u00e9s par Aristote.\r\n\r\nCette reformulation syllogistique (RS), suivant les pr\u00e9ceptes donn\u00e9s dans les ouvrages logiques d\u2019Aristote, fait passer des raisonnements exprim\u00e9s en langage naturel dans un langage et une disposition canoniques qui mettent en valeur les pr\u00e9misses explicites ou implicites et isolent la conclusion ; le tout est articul\u00e9 par des conjonctions et des formules modales qui ne sont pas toujours identiques \u00e0 celles d\u2019Aristote, ni m\u00eame pr\u00e9sentes dans son texte. Dans le Commentaire au Trait\u00e9 sur le ciel, le caract\u00e8re r\u00e9p\u00e9titif, fastidieux m\u00eame de ces reformulations, accentu\u00e9 par la structure en ab\u00eeme de ce trait\u00e9 particulier, la reprise de th\u00e8ses d\u2019un livre \u00e0 l\u2019autre, et la circularit\u00e9 de certains raisonnements, peut tromper le lecteur. Gardons-nous pourtant de n\u2019y voir qu\u2019une d\u00e9monstration scolaire de virtuosit\u00e9 technique. Modifications et ajouts sont beaucoup plus que des effets de variatio \u00e0 valeur didactique : ils nous confirment les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s th\u00e9ologiques et \u00e9pist\u00e9miques du commentateur, pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s particuli\u00e8rement importants, s\u2019agissant de la science difficile \u00e0 classer qu\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019astronomie dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 377-378]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cQxTAlCRsoikXrH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":61,"full_name":"Dalimier, Catherine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":100,"full_name":"Goulet-Caz\u00e9, Marie-Odile ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1288,"section_of":269,"pages":"377-386","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":269,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du colloque international de l'institute des traditions textuelles, Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet-Caz\u00e92000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"Une bonne partie de la litterature universelle est une litterature de commentaire. Cette constatation s'applique particulierement a la litterature antique et medievale, fortement ancree dans la tradition grace aux institutions scolaires. Situes en fait au croisement de la tradition et de l'innovation, les textes exegetiques s'attachent d'abod a comprendre et a expliquer la pensee des maitres qui font autorite, mais souvent ils essaient aussi de la depasser, si bien que la demarche du commentaire peut aller de l'exegese la plus litterale a l'interpretation la plus allegorisante, de l'explication la plus traditionnelle au commentaire le plus neuf. L'objectif de ce recueil est de cerner sous tous ses aspects, dans toutes ses composantes et toutes ses problematiques, la realite du commentaire depuis sa fabrication materielle jusqu'a l'elabotration de ses contenus speculatifs, dans des aires culturelles multiples: mondes grec, latin, hebraique, arabe indien et a des epoques differentes: hellenistique, Empire romain, Moyen Age et Renaissance. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RdY8RrIpT0hwHi3","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":269,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1288,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens-Occidens","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"77-94"}},"sort":["Les enjeux de la reformulation syllogistique chez les commentateurs grecs du De caelo d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Les fragments |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1192","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1192,"authors_free":[{"id":1763,"entry_id":1192,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les fragments","main_title":{"title":"Les fragments"},"abstract":"A commentary of Fragments in Simplicius: Fragment 4 (B2 FK); Fragment 5 (B7 DK); T3 a and b (A7 and 13A4 DK); T4 (A5 DK); T8 (A19 DK); T23a, b, c, and d (A10 and 13A11 DK); T24 (A10 DK) ","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Du6NCbF1wmtuJiM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1192,"section_of":351,"pages":"62-71, 118-125, 132-159, 198-201","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Les fragments"]}
Title | Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Traduction commentée sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Première partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch) |
Pages | 21-47 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1182","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1182,"authors_free":[{"id":1755,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1974,"entry_id":1182,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens","main_title":{"title":"Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"},"abstract":"The text discusses the introductions to exegetical commentaries by Neoplatonic and Christian authors, using Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories as an example. It is divided into two parts: the first provides the historical context, sources and method, and the second develops the two traditional outlines used in the introduction of commentaries on the Categories. These two outlines are found in the commentaries of the four other Neoplatonic authors who commented on the Categories, namely Ammonius, Philopon, Olympiodore and David, and also in the Arabic introductions of Al-Farabi and Al-Kindi. The text offers a comparative study of the commentaries and the introductions, highlighting the differences in structure and form. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ecCQO0VOCCVgZa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1182,"section_of":179,"pages":"21-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":179,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Cat\u00e9gories. Traduction comment\u00e9e sous la direction de Ilsetraut Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction, Premi\u00e8re partie (p. 1-9, 3 Kalbfleisch)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1990e","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The French translation with commentary, the first in a modern language, allows historians of philosophy access to a fundamental work for the understanding of medieval and modern thought. They could also explore more easily the great variety of information contained in the commentary of Simplicius on the history of the exegis of the Cat\u00e9gories of Aristotle, and more generally on the history of comparative philosophy of Simplicius. They will discover some important aspects in the actual thought of Simplicius, which so far has hardly been explored. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KyrBWf80BsqVFO8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":179,"pubplace":"Leiden - New York - K\u00f8benhavn - K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua. A Series of studies on ancient Philosophy","volume":"50.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les introductions aux commentaires ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques chez les auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens et les auteurs chr\u00e9tiens"]}
Title | Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 127-141 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan général du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte à la discipline du désir. Il invite, sous une forme imagée, à ne pas s’attacher aux personnes qui nous sont chères, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires. Dans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en présence d’une comparaison, parabole ou allégorie. Une allégorie est, pourrait-on dire, une métaphore prolongée. Les parties d’un ensemble structuré et cohérent de réalités ou d’événements (A), ici l’escale d’un navire dans un port, correspondent terme à terme aux parties d’un autre ensemble structuré de réalités ou d’événements (B), ici la vie humaine. L’auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre à son lecteur, que la conduite que l’on est obligé d’avoir dans l’ensemble B doit être analogue à celle qui nous semble nécessaire dans l’ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"947","_score":null,"_source":{"id":947,"authors_free":[{"id":1417,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1418,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1419,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1420,"entry_id":947,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet","main_title":{"title":"Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"},"abstract":"Ce chapitre 7 est, dans le plan g\u00e9n\u00e9ral du Manuel, le premier chapitre qui se rapporte \u00e0 la discipline du d\u00e9sir. Il invite, sous une forme imag\u00e9e, \u00e0 ne pas s\u2019attacher aux personnes qui nous sont ch\u00e8res, parce que ce ne sont que des dons provisoires.\r\n\r\nDans ce chapitre 7, nous sommes donc en pr\u00e9sence d\u2019une comparaison, parabole ou all\u00e9gorie. Une all\u00e9gorie est, pourrait-on dire, une m\u00e9taphore prolong\u00e9e. Les parties d\u2019un ensemble structur\u00e9 et coh\u00e9rent de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (A), ici l\u2019escale d\u2019un navire dans un port, correspondent terme \u00e0 terme aux parties d\u2019un autre ensemble structur\u00e9 de r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ou d\u2019\u00e9v\u00e9nements (B), ici la vie humaine. L\u2019auteur veut faire comprendre, et surtout faire admettre \u00e0 son lecteur, que la conduite que l\u2019on est oblig\u00e9 d\u2019avoir dans l\u2019ensemble B doit \u00eatre analogue \u00e0 celle qui nous semble n\u00e9cessaire dans l\u2019ensemble A. [introduction p. 127-128]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aAE3KxzcRfbBvpH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":947,"section_of":218,"pages":"127-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet"]}
Title | Les prières en prose de Simplicius, entre rhétorique et théologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Théories et practiques de la prière à la fin de l'antiquité |
Pages | 209-267 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Timotin, Andrei |
Translator(s) |
Les prières en prose de Simplicius, quant à elles, appartiennent toutes à la catégorie des prières conclusives – dont le modèle est fourni par la prière à Pan à la fin du Phèdre de Platon, qui est une référence pour les prières philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent être rapprochées de la prière finale de la Réponse à Por- phyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel « hymne » en prose de Proclus marquant une césure importante dans la Théologie Platoni- cienne 159. Les autres prières néoplatoniciennes que nous avons citées ou évoquées sont soit des prières initiales soit des prières intervenant dans le cours même d’une œuvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces prières – souvent complexes – et celles de Simplicius n’est pas illégitime et fait apparaître une indéniable parenté : Simplicius s’inscrit dans une tradition spécifiquement néoplatonicienne, où la rhéto- rique de la prière sert à l’expression d’un savoir théologique et d’une forme de piété personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore les accents. Ses prières sont tout à la fois des prières philosophiques et littéraires, des prières personnelles, des prières demandant des grâces particulières, mais aussi de véritables prières cultuelles, dans la mesure où, comme tous les professeurs néoplatoniciens, Simplicius célèbre par ses commentaires une véritable liturgie en l’honneur des dieux; et l’on a remarqué aussi l’affleurement d’une dimension théurgique que ses prières partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces différentes catégories ne doivent pas être opposées, car elles se fondent ici dans l’unité dynamique de l’acte de parole, qui est aussi un élan de l’âme. Car si ces prières sont des textes écrits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s’actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes révélés par l’analyse stylistique, qui demandent à être prononcés et entendus. Le raffinement de l’écriture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l’on se plaît à imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son privé, peut-être dans un discours « mental », prononcer ces prières et les faire résonner. Mais parce que ses prières sont l’achèvement de commentaires destinés à des « commençants » et non à des philosophes confirmés, Simplicius s’en tient à des déclarations théologiques élémentaires et s’exprime de façon beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient à maîtriser la solennité qui est de règle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses prédécesseurs néoplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses prières au dieu ou aux dieux qui veillent, de façon précise, sur l’ordre de réalité visé par son enseignement. À tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d’une ἀναγωγή indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui dépassera la discursivité et à son terme n’aura plus besoin du langage, ni même de prière, car elle s’accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1396","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1396,"authors_free":[{"id":2172,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2175,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2176,"entry_id":1396,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":373,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Timotin, Andrei","free_first_name":"Andrei","free_last_name":"Timotin","norm_person":{"id":373,"first_name":"Andrei","last_name":"Timotin","full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1074855116","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, quant \u00e0 elles, appartiennent toutes \u00e0 la cat\u00e9gorie des pri\u00e8res conclusives \u2013 dont le mod\u00e8le est fourni par la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 Pan \u00e0 la fin du Ph\u00e8dre de Platon, qui est une r\u00e9f\u00e9rence pour les pri\u00e8res philosophiques 158. De ce point de vue, formel, elles peuvent \u00eatre rapproch\u00e9es de la pri\u00e8re finale de la R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 Por-\r\nphyre (De Mysteriis) de Jamblique, ou de tel \u00ab hymne \u00bb en prose de Proclus marquant une c\u00e9sure importante dans la Th\u00e9ologie Platoni-\r\ncienne 159. Les autres pri\u00e8res n\u00e9oplatoniciennes que nous avons cit\u00e9es ou \u00e9voqu\u00e9es sont soit des pri\u00e8res initiales soit des pri\u00e8res intervenant \r\ndans le cours m\u00eame d\u2019une \u0153uvre. Mais la comparaison entre toutes ces pri\u00e8res \u2013 souvent complexes \u2013 et celles de Simplicius n\u2019est pas \r\nill\u00e9gitime et fait appara\u00eetre une ind\u00e9niable parent\u00e9 : Simplicius s\u2019inscrit dans une tradition sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatonicienne, o\u00f9 la rh\u00e9to-\r\nrique de la pri\u00e8re sert \u00e0 l\u2019expression d\u2019un savoir th\u00e9ologique et d\u2019une forme de pi\u00e9t\u00e9 personnelle dont le lecteur contemporain entend encore \r\nles accents. Ses pri\u00e8res sont tout \u00e0 la fois des pri\u00e8res philosophiques et litt\u00e9raires, des pri\u00e8res personnelles, des pri\u00e8res demandant des gr\u00e2ces \r\nparticuli\u00e8res, mais aussi de v\u00e9ritables pri\u00e8res cultuelles, dans la mesure o\u00f9, comme tous les professeurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Simplicius c\u00e9l\u00e8bre \r\npar ses commentaires une v\u00e9ritable liturgie en l\u2019honneur des dieux; et l\u2019on a remarqu\u00e9 aussi l\u2019affleurement d\u2019une dimension th\u00e9urgique \r\nque ses pri\u00e8res partagent avec les Hymnes de Proclus. Ces diff\u00e9rentes cat\u00e9gories ne doivent pas \u00eatre oppos\u00e9es, car elles se fondent \r\nici dans l\u2019unit\u00e9 dynamique de l\u2019acte de parole, qui est aussi un \u00e9lan de l\u2019\u00e2me. Car si ces pri\u00e8res sont des textes \u00e9crits, leur vertu anagogique ne peut s\u2019actualiser que dans la vibration sonore et les rythmes r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s par l\u2019analyse stylistique, qui demandent \u00e0 \u00eatre prononc\u00e9s et entendus. \r\nLe raffinement de l\u2019\u00e9criture, ici, appelle une oralisation, et l\u2019on se pla\u00eet \u00e0 imaginer que Simplicius a pu, au moins en son priv\u00e9, peut-\u00eatre dans un discours \u00ab mental \u00bb, prononcer ces pri\u00e8res et les faire r\u00e9sonner. Mais parce que ses pri\u00e8res sont l\u2019ach\u00e8vement de commentaires \r\ndestin\u00e9s \u00e0 des \u00ab commen\u00e7ants \u00bb et non \u00e0 des philosophes confirm\u00e9s, Simplicius s\u2019en tient \u00e0 des d\u00e9clarations th\u00e9ologiques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires et \r\ns\u2019exprime de fa\u00e7on beaucoup plus sobre que Jamblique ou Proclus ; son style clair et simple parvient \u00e0 ma\u00eetriser la solennit\u00e9 qui est de \r\nr\u00e8gle dans des adresses aux dieux 163, mais comme ses pr\u00e9d\u00e9cesseurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens il ordonne chacune de ses pri\u00e8res au dieu ou aux \r\ndieux qui veillent, de fa\u00e7on pr\u00e9cise, sur l\u2019ordre de r\u00e9alit\u00e9 vis\u00e9 par son enseignement. \u00c0 tous ces dieux Simplicius demande un accompagnement bienveillant et une aide sur la voie d\u2019une \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae indissolublement scientifique et spirituelle qui d\u00e9passera la discursivit\u00e9 et \u00e0 son terme n\u2019aura \r\nplus besoin du langage, ni m\u00eame de pri\u00e8re, car elle s\u2019accomplira dans le Silence. [conclusion, pp. 264-267]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eXg1Z7UIknMFhi4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":373,"full_name":"Timotin, Andrei","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1396,"section_of":1397,"pages":"209-267","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1397,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Th\u00e9ories et practiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l'antiquit\u00e9","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hoffmann2020a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce livre \u00e9tudie les diff\u00e9rents modes de rapport entre les th\u00e9ories et les pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 dans un cadre interdisciplinaire qui r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes de l\u2019histoire religieuse des mondes grec et romain, de la philosophie religieuse tardo-antique et de la litt\u00e9rature patristique. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CTKw8APVQcq7YHq","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1397,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que de l'\u00e9cole des hautes \u00e9tudes sciences religieuses","volume":"185","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1396,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Th\u00e9ories et pratiques de la pri\u00e8re \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":["Les pri\u00e8res en prose de Simplicius, entre rh\u00e9torique et th\u00e9ologie"]}
Title | Les relatifs dans les Catégories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 167-195 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Caujolle-Zaslawsky, F. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1564","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1564,"authors_free":[{"id":2731,"entry_id":1564,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, F. ","free_first_name":"F.","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Les relatifs dans les Cat\u00e9gories","main_title":{"title":"Les relatifs dans les Cat\u00e9gories"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1564,"section_of":302,"pages":"167-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les relatifs dans les Cat\u00e9gories"]}
Title | Levels of human thinking in Philoponus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday |
Pages | 451-470 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Laga, Carl , Munitiz, Joseph A. , Rompay, Lucas van |
Translator(s) |
What is finally the meaning of Philoponus’s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may conclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the intelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure of philosophical wisdom". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back and turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside themselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly participate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. They never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means of discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be comes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1391","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1391,"authors_free":[{"id":2156,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2160,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":349,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Laga, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Laga","norm_person":{"id":349,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Laga","full_name":"Laga, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119278146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2161,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":350,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","free_first_name":"Joseph A.","free_last_name":"Munitiz","norm_person":{"id":350,"first_name":"Joseph A.","last_name":"Munitiz","full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/105468202X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2162,"entry_id":1391,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":351,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","free_first_name":"Lucas","free_last_name":"Rompay van","norm_person":{"id":351,"first_name":"Lucas","last_name":"Rompay, van","full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055081453","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus","main_title":{"title":"Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"},"abstract":"What is finally the meaning of Philoponus\u2019s teaching on the levels of thought? Taking into account the previous considerations, we may \r\nconclude that this doctrine is intended to disclose the true nature of philosophical reflection as a direct and immediate intuition of the \r\nintelligible world. This disclosure is an internal one: each individual bears within himself, in the hidden abodes of his consciousness, a treasure \r\nof philosophical wisdom\". In order to contemplate the highest truth, man should not leave himself, on the contrary he should come back \r\nand turn to himself, to his true self. Most people live outside them\u00adselves in a permanent forgetfulness of their real nature: they hardly \r\nparticipate in philosophical wisdom, they only possess some common intuitions, which are a kind of trace or vestige of rational truth. \r\nThey never come to the level of a direct contemplation of the intelligibles. In order to reach the supreme level of thinking man needs a moral preparation, which makes him able to overcome the influence of irrational movements; he also needs an intellectual training by means \r\nof discursive reasoning in order to free himself from the impact of senses and imagination. If these requirements are fulfilled, man be\u00ad\r\ncomes able to contemplate directly true reality in the internal world of his consciousness. [conclusion, p. 469]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PBqIyB5guZfHl6C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":349,"full_name":"Laga, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":350,"full_name":"Munitiz, Joseph A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":351,"full_name":"Rompay, Lucas van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1391,"section_of":1392,"pages":"451-470","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1392,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. Offered to Professor Albert van Roey for his seventieth birthday","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Laga1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume in honour of Prof. P.H.L. Eggermont, Indologist and Classicist, is focused on North and Northwest India, and on the adjacent regions to the west, with special attention to the Hellenistic monarchies, the historical geography of India, the ancient trade routes, and the contacts between India, Greece and Rome. The contributions of this Festschrift provide a bulk of material, especially for those interested in relations between Classical and Oriental philological, historical, archaeological, and geographical sources. Besides, the volume contains a biography and a bibliography of Prof. Eggermont. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERNutaoLJTpirTN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1392,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Itgeverij Peeters Leuven","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Levels of human thinking in Philoponus"]}
Title | Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985) |
Pages | 305-318 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Translator(s) |
In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid’s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage students to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates’ remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus’ famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus’ philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1211","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1211,"authors_free":[{"id":1792,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1793,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2119,"entry_id":1211,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"},"abstract":"In the prologue to his commentary on book I of Euclid\u2019s Elements Proclus refers to two areas of disagreement among the Platonists concerning mathematics. In the first passage in which he does this (29.14ff.) he indicates that some philoi from his own hearth encourage \r\nstudents to disdain mathematics, enlisting on their side Plato himself because of some of Socrates\u2019 remarks in the Republic, notably the rhetorical question of 533 c 3-5 [...]. The second passage comes at the end of Proclus\u2019 famous description of the character of geometry [...]. In this paper I wish to pursue these disagreements in the hopes of throwing light on distinctive features of Proclus\u2019 philosophy of mathematics. [Introduction, p. 305]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KU98nZhkgyJWbsr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1211,"section_of":159,"pages":"305-318","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Mathematics and Philosophy in Proclus' Commentary on Book I of Euclid's Elements"]}
Title | Metacommentary |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 267-281 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Annas, Julia |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius’ works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"646","_score":null,"_source":{"id":646,"authors_free":[{"id":924,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":925,"entry_id":646,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":415,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Annas, Julia","free_first_name":"Julia","free_last_name":"Annas","norm_person":{"id":415,"first_name":"Julia","last_name":"Annas","full_name":"Annas, Julia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/112065120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Metacommentary","main_title":{"title":"Metacommentary"},"abstract":"Simplicius is in the scholarly news; the Neoplatonists are making a comeback; and the Greek commentaries on Aristotle are submitting to renewed scholarly scrutiny and enjoying some little publicity. Students of Greek philosophy have always referred to Simplicius and his fellows; but they have usually read a page here and a paragraph there, and their primary interest in the works has been in their value as sources for earlier thought (for the Presocratics, for the Stoics). This approach to a text has its dangers; and it is an unqualified good that Simplicius\u2019 works are now being studied hard for themselves and as wholes. The French metacommentary may be regarded, and should be welcomed, as a part of this enterprise. But I am, I suspect, not alone in hoping that the next nine fascicles may prove a touch more sprightly and a touch more lithe. [conclusion p. 280-281]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FBuj9EwgXQZ5fXT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":415,"full_name":"Annas, Julia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":646,"section_of":285,"pages":"267-281","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":285,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Annas1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is an annual publication which includes original articles on a wide range of topics in ancient philosophy, and review articles of major books. In this supplementary volume, a number of renowned scholars of Plato reflect upon their interpretative methods. Topics covered include the use of ancient authorities in interpreting Plato's dialogues, Plato's literary and rhetorical style, his arguments and characters, and his use of the dialogue form. The collection is not intended as a comprehensive survey of methodological approaches; rather it offers a number of different perspectives and clearly articulated interpretations by leading scholars in the field. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dS81MCQI85uHYdS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":285,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"X","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Metacommentary"]}
Title | Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 413-436 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | de Haas, Frans A. J. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella’s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle’s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established. Zabarella’s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his ‘true’ interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella’s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella’s own theory of mixture still await further investigation. To conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle’s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors’ commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella’s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle’s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus. [conclusion p. 434-435] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1528","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1528,"authors_free":[{"id":2661,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","free_first_name":"Frans A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2662,"entry_id":1528,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality","main_title":{"title":"Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"},"abstract":"In this study, I have tried to show that Philoponus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s account of mixture has to be understood against the background of a discussion between three views of mixture that dominated the Aristotelian tradition as a whole. The starting point was Zabarella\u2019s classification of solutions to the main problem of mixture: how to interpret Aristotle\u2019s claim that the ingredients are preserved in the mixture in potentiality. In a sense, Proclus and Simplicius belong with Avicenna because they accept the preservation of the elements in actuality, along with reduced actuality and interaction in the realm of qualities. However, since they reject Aristotelian mixture and discuss the problem in terms of body vs. qualities rather than forms vs. qualities, they are best regarded as belonging to a different school altogether. Alexander is probably the main source of the influential account of Averroes. Philoponus belongs with the fourth group due to his criticism of Aristotle (or rather Alexander). He accepts the corruption of the ingredients while only their qualities are preserved in reduced actuality. It remains to be seen whether his influence on the medieval authors that subscribe to a similar view can be established.\r\n\r\nZabarella\u2019s reports on his sources should be handled with care. His summaries of Alexander are inadequate, his understanding of Philoponus is wrong. He himself claims that his \u2018true\u2019 interpretation of Averroes was not followed by any Averroist (see e.g. 465A, 466B), which should give us pause as well. Moreover, I fail to see how he can believe that his complicated interpretation of Averroes can be backed up by his interpretation of Alexander and Philoponus: they seem to represent three quite different doctrines indeed. Although a quick glance at Zabarella\u2019s other medieval sources seems to confirm his classification of them, it cannot be ruled out that closer inspection will yield some surprises, as it did with Philoponus. The details of Zabarella\u2019s own theory of mixture still await further investigation.\r\n\r\nTo conclude on a more general note: in charting the commentary tradition on Aristotle\u2019s work from Late Antiquity through Arabic, Latin Medieval, and Renaissance authors, it is tempting to assume we are dealing with a single line of tradition. However, it is still far from clear which ancient commentaries were available (in Greek or in Arabic, Syrian, or Latin translation) at what date. But even if this can be established, we cannot be sure that a particular commentator actually used his predecessors\u2019 commentaries, even when he refers to them by name: perhaps he merely copied a reference from another commentary. In this way, Zabarella\u2019s mistake may have arisen. More importantly, every commentator who analyzes the problem of the potentiality of the ingredients in a mixture as it is presented in Aristotle\u2019s texts in On Generation and Corruption is faced with a limited number of possible solutions. Every commentator, then, is perfectly capable of re-inventing the wheel. However, the application of the third kind of potentiality in the context of mixture seems to have been invented for the first time by John Philoponus.\r\n[conclusion p. 434-435]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ldUX6hfn5ClzTTs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1528,"section_of":1419,"pages":"413-436","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Mixture in Philoponus: An Encounter with a Third Kind of Potentiality"]}
Title | Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century |
Pages | 31-56 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Haas, Frans A. J. de |
Editor(s) | Leijenhorst, Cees , Lüthy, Christoph , Thijssen, J. M. M. H. |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":523,"authors_free":[{"id":730,"entry_id":523,"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}},{"id":731,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":155,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","free_first_name":"Cees","free_last_name":"Leijenhorst","norm_person":{"id":155,"first_name":"Leijenhorst","last_name":"Cees","full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173195253","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":732,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":156,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"L\u00fcthy","norm_person":{"id":156,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"L\u00fcthy","full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1057979945","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":733,"entry_id":523,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":157,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Thijssen, J. M. M. H.","free_first_name":"J. M. M. H.","free_last_name":"Thijssen","norm_person":{"id":157,"first_name":"Johannes M. M. H.","last_name":"Thijssen","full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1173828508","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"},"abstract":"In this essay, Frans A.J. de Haas explores the commentary tradition on Aristotle's Physics, focusing on the first chapter, which is considered pivotal for Aristotelian natural philosophy. The chapter sets the stage for Aristotle's principles of science and the method of scientific inquiry. However, the twenty-two lines of the chapter have not lived up to these high expectations, leading to a bewildering variety of interpretations in the commentary tradition. The essay aims to understand the development of the commentary tradition and the factors that influenced the various interpretations. De Haas presents a method of charting a commentator's philosophical environment to explain their modifications of Aristotle's doctrine. He examines the interpretation of Physics 1.1 by Themistius, an influential ancient commentator. De Haas identifies several factors that may explain Themistius' specific interpretation, such as the assumption of a deductive method in physics, the influence of Theophrastus' logical analysis, and Alexander's proposal of the coherence of all sciences. Themistius introduces the topic of universal concepts, which leads to discussions about the priority of universals in Aristotle's writings. The essay concludes that understanding the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition allows us to recognize the influence of earlier interpretations in later commentators. This realization highlights the importance of carefully considering the original context and intentions of Aristotle's work to avoid misinterpretations in subsequent commentaries. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dDhNbH3yjSg3bKC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":155,"full_name":"Leijenhorst, Cees","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":156,"full_name":"L\u00fcthy, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":157,"full_name":"Thijssen, Johannes M. M. H.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":523,"section_of":370,"pages":"31-56","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":370,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The dynamics of Aristotelian natural philosophy from Antiquity to the seventeenth century","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leijenhorst_2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This book explores the dynamics of the commentary and textbook traditions in Aristotelian natural philosophy under the headings of doctrine, method, and scientific and social status. It enquires what the evolution of the Aristotelian commentary tradition can tell us about the character of natural philosophy as a pedagogical tool, as a scientific enterprise, and as a background to modern scientific thought. In a unique attempt to cut old-fashioned historiographic divisions, it brings together scholars of ancient, medieval, Renaissance and seventeenth-century philosophy. The book covers a remarkably broad range of topics: it starts with the first Greek commentators and ends with Leibniz. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OLB13j4YVPx0XVb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":370,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Medieval and early modern science","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Modifications of the method of inquiry in Aristotle\u2019s Physics I.1. An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary tradition"]}
Title | Movers and Shakers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown |
Pages | 19-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lane Fox, Robin |
Editor(s) | Smith, Andrew |
Translator(s) |
In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to change a person’s choice of life and scale of values. The ‘shakers’ of my title are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, including Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual’s relation to contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then the philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, some took this option, and they are my ‘movers’. Both the ‘shakers’ and the ‘movers’ need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, but a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep analysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian’s grasp, and so I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading of particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"881","_score":null,"_source":{"id":881,"authors_free":[{"id":1294,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":231,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","free_first_name":"Robin","free_last_name":"Lane Fox","norm_person":{"id":231,"first_name":"Robin","last_name":"Lane Fox","full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128980869","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1295,"entry_id":881,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Movers and Shakers","main_title":{"title":"Movers and Shakers"},"abstract":"In late antiquity, as in all other periods, philosophy had the power to \r\nchange a person\u2019s choice of life and scale of values. The \u2018shakers\u2019 of my \r\ntitle are people who passed on this sort of impact to others. Philosophy, \r\nincluding Platonist philosophy, also addressed the intellectual\u2019s relation \r\nto contemporary society. If that society was incurably misguided, then \r\nthe philosopher might have no option except to leave it. In late antiquity, \r\nsome took this option, and they are my \u2018movers\u2019. Both the \u2018shakers\u2019 and the \r\n\u2018movers\u2019 need to be understood in terms of the philosophy they professed, \r\nbut a sufficient understanding of their actions does not require a deep \r\nanalysis of their deepest thoughts. They are within a historian\u2019s grasp, and \r\nso I will discuss individuals, their texts and contexts without a close reading \r\nof particular arguments. [Introduction, p. 19]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8VcnG6x2IAjup1i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":231,"full_name":"Lane Fox, Robin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":881,"section_of":266,"pages":"19-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":266,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The philosopher and society in late antiquity. Essays in honour of Peter Brown","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Smith2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The philosophers of Late Antiquity have sometimes appeared to be estranged from society. 'We must flee everything physical' is one of the most prominent ideas taken by Augustine from Platonic literature. This collection of new studies by leading writers on Late Antiquity treats both the principles of metaphysics and the practical engagement of philosophers. It points to a more substantive and complex involvement in worldly affairs than conventional handbooks admit. [editors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/16pqZRp8m6vNvzb","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":266,"pubplace":"Oakville","publisher":"The Classical Press of Wales","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Movers and Shakers"]}
Title | Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence |
Pages | 317–342 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blackwell, Constance |
Editor(s) | Clucas, Stephen , Forshaw, Peter J. , Rees, Valery |
Translator(s) |
I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"614","_score":null,"_source":{"id":614,"authors_free":[{"id":869,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":870,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":400,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Clucas, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Clucas","norm_person":{"id":400,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Clucas","full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139992146","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2226,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":401,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","free_first_name":"Peter J.","free_last_name":"Forshaw","norm_person":{"id":401,"first_name":"Peter J.","last_name":"Forshaw","full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137513941","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2227,"entry_id":614,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":402,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rees, Valery","free_first_name":"Valery","free_last_name":"Rees","norm_person":{"id":402,"first_name":"Valery","last_name":"Rees","full_name":"Rees, Valery","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1033238872","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius","main_title":{"title":"Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"},"abstract":"I have presented here some details of a very large and complex debate, in the process of which the history of Platonism itself was transformed. Some made every effort to write the Neo-Platonic tradition out of philosophy's history. For others, like Ralph Cudworth, who substantially transformed it, it was the most important part, while for Brucker it distorted the history of philosophy. [conclusion p. 342]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZVTsH1Lfz6fZl3o","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":400,"full_name":"Clucas, Stephen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":401,"full_name":"Forshaw, Peter J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":402,"full_name":"Rees, Valery","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":614,"section_of":613,"pages":"317\u2013342","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":613,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Laus Platonici Philosophi. Marsilio Ficino and his Influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Clucas2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This collection of essays honours Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) as a Platonic philosopher. Ficino was not the first translator of Plato in the Renaissance, but he was the first to translate the entire corpus of Platonic works, and to emphasise their relevance for contemporary readers. The present work is divided into two sections: the first explores aspects of Ficino\u2019s own thought and the sources which he used. The second section follows aspects of his influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The papers presented here deepen and enrich our understanding of Ficino, and of the philosophical tradition in which he was working, and they offer a new platform for future studies on Ficino and his legacy in Renaissance philosophy.\r\n\r\nContributors include: Unn Irene Aasdalen, Constance Blackwell, Paul Richard Blum, Stephen Clucas, Ruth Clydesdale, Brian Copenhaver, John Dillon, Peter J. Forshaw, James Hankins, Hiro Hirai, Sarah Klitenic Wear, David Leech, Letizia Panizza, Valery Rees, and St\u00e9phane Toussaint. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/J4IFZHaUYcFnYSe","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":613,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Studies in Intellectual History","volume":"198","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neo-Platonic Modes of Concordism versus Definitions of Difference: Simplicius, Augustinus Steuco and Ralph Cudworth versus Marco Antonio Zimara and Benedictus Pererius"]}
Title | Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1982 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and Christian thought |
Pages | 169-177 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mahoney, Edward P. |
Editor(s) | O'Meara, Dominic J. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aristotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317—388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1111","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1111,"authors_free":[{"id":1678,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":459,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","free_first_name":"Edward P.","free_last_name":"Mahoney","norm_person":{"id":459,"first_name":"Edward P.","last_name":"Mahoney","full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123905818","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1679,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris\u00adtotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317\u2014388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":459,"full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1111,"section_of":12,"pages":"169-177","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"]}
Title | Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 171-185 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wilberding, James |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen’s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us "hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form." What is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses: (i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed. (ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous. (iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality. (iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses. It is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle’s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen’s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed. What is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect. When this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male’s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One’s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"913","_score":null,"_source":{"id":913,"authors_free":[{"id":1346,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1347,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1348,"entry_id":913,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life"},"abstract":"In the Neoplatonism of late antiquity, there was an exciting and revolutionary development in the understanding of the aetiology involved in the generation of living things. Here, it will be argued that this extended all the way to the Neoplatonic understanding of the causes of vegetative life. In a way, this should come as no surprise. Hippocratics, Aristotle, and Galen all viewed the processes involved in the generation of plants as analogous to those in the generation of embryos. In fact, the embryo was commonly held to have the life-status of a plant, with the mother taking on the role of the earth, at least at the earliest stages of its generation. As a result, these thinkers saw the same causal models that govern the generation of embryos at work in the generation of plants. Indeed, Galen even advises those who wish to investigate the formation of embryos to begin by looking into the generation of plants. The above-mentioned analogy is certainly part of the motivation behind Galen\u2019s counsel, but equally important is that plants are simpler, in terms of both their physiology and their psychology, and thus more perspicuous objects of study. This is what gives us \"hope to discover among the plants [biological] administration in its pure and unadulterated form.\"\r\n\r\nWhat is surprising is the conception of vegetative generation and life that results for Neoplatonists. As I shall show here, they ultimately concluded that the vegetative souls of individual plants are not self-sufficient. That is to say, the dependence of individual plants on the earth, in terms of both their generation and their preservation, extends beyond mere nutritive needs into the psychological domain of their life activities. In order to see how they arrived at this surprising conclusion, it will be necessary to begin with a brief sketch of Neoplatonic embryological theory, as it can be found across a wide range of core Neoplatonic authors and texts. This theory may be encapsulated into four theses:\r\n\r\n(i) First, all Neoplatonists are one-seed theorists: there is no female seed. In this, the Neoplatonists were in full agreement with Peripatetic embryology and in opposition to the two-seed theories advanced by the Hippocratics and Galen, though this opposition remains only implicit, as they never even acknowledge the possibility of a female seed.\r\n\r\n(ii) Second, Neoplatonists universally understand the seed to be a collection of form-principles (logoi) corresponding to individual parts of the father (and by extension of the offspring). Since these form-principles are immaterial, they are wholly present in every part of the seed, allowing the seed to be completely homoiomerous.\r\n\r\n(iii) Third, these seminal form-principles are in a state of potentiality.\r\n\r\n(iv) Fourth, they must be led to a state of actuality by an external cause that possesses these same principles in actuality. This cause is generally identified with the nature of the mother, who is additionally responsible for supplying the matter in the form of menses.\r\n\r\nIt is these final two theses that establish the Neoplatonic theory as an exciting new development in ancient embryology. On Aristotle\u2019s one-seed theory, by contrast, the male seed serves as the formal and efficient cause of embryological development, requiring only matter from the female. Aristotle establishes the self-sufficiency of the male seed as an efficient cause by attributing actual motion to it. Even on Galen\u2019s two-seed theory, where one might have expected the female to be granted greater causal efficacy in the embryological process, the male seed remains the sole efficient cause, with the female seed more or less demoted to serving as nourishment for the male seed.\r\n\r\nWhat is revolutionary, therefore, in the Neoplatonic account of embryology is its placing the female on equal footing with the male in terms of their causal contributions in embryology. This new conceptualization of the respective contributions of the male and female should be seen as resulting from the application of the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework of procession and reversion to embryology. Within this framework, the creation of an offspring consists of two distinct causal moments. In the first moment, procession, an inchoate offspring is generated that is a likeness of its progenitor but in a state of potentiality. The procession from the One, for example, results in the generation of the Pre-Intellect, which is still only potentially the Intellect. The second moment, reversion, is what accounts for this potentiality being led to a state of activity: by reversion, the Pre-Intellect becomes the genuine Intellect.\r\n\r\nWhen this framework is applied to embryology, the theses (iii) and (iv) above follow. The male\u2019s emission of a seed is likened to procession, with the form-principles in the seed still being in a state of potentiality. This potentiality is led to actuality by the mother at conception and throughout the process of gestation. Thus, the male and the female are on a par insofar as each corresponds to one of the two moments of the One\u2019s creative activity. [introduction p. 171-174]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ElblvTuFCEVCpgN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":913,"section_of":155,"pages":"171-185","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonists on the causes of vegetative life"]}
Title | Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 243-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant. Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260. L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie). Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1319","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1319,"authors_free":[{"id":1953,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2375,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les qualit\u00e9s que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent commun\u00e9ment de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clart\u00e9 des expos\u00e9s et la pertinence de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ce commentaire a joui d\u2019une longue post\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez les \u00e9rudits et philosophes byzantins. En t\u00e9moigne d\u2019embl\u00e9e l\u2019abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d\u2019entre eux sont conserv\u00e9s aujourd\u2019hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L\u2019utilisation de ce commentaire \u00e0 Byzance a \u00e9t\u00e9 presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu\u2019\u00e0 Pl\u00e9thon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique (\u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae) de Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote en repr\u00e9sente le point culminant.\r\n\r\nAvant d\u2019aborder l\u2019\u00e9tude qui nous int\u00e9resse ici particuli\u00e8rement, quelques br\u00e8ves pr\u00e9cisions sur la nature de l\u2019ouvrage seront utiles. L\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique \u2013 autrement dit Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 introductif \u2013 est un compendium scolaire divis\u00e9 en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appel\u00e9es commun\u00e9ment Epitom\u00e9 logique et Epitom\u00e9 physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l\u2019essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l\u2019astronomie), la partie physique ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans sa forme finale vers l\u2019an 1260.\r\n\r\nL\u2019Epitom\u00e9 de Blemmyde n\u2019appartient \u00e9videmment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorit\u00e9 mais plut\u00f4t sur des th\u00e8mes philosophiques, qui sont annonc\u00e9s par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l\u2019ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l\u2019\u00e9rudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les sp\u00e9culations \u00e9tendues d\u00e9clench\u00e9es par ce qui est dit ou n\u2019est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorit\u00e9, la mention des auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs, les citations pr\u00e9cises. On a ici affaire non pas \u00e0 un commentateur, mais plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et n\u00e9cessaires (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, comme il le dit lui-m\u00eame dans son autobiographie).\r\n\r\nLes mat\u00e9riaux \u00e0 partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique sont mis en place sont emprunt\u00e9s surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique et au trait\u00e9 Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au trait\u00e9 De la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration et de la corruption et celui d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le rapport de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique \u2013 la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres \u2013 qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous t\u00e2cherons d\u2019aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire appara\u00eetre, d\u2019une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde \u00e0 Simplicius et \u00e9valuer, d\u2019autre part \u2013 en consid\u00e9ration du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fid\u00e8lement des passages entiers de son mod\u00e8le \u2013 le r\u00f4le de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1319,"section_of":37,"pages":"243-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Nous pathêtikos in later Greek philosophy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 191-205 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of Tübingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous poietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos never occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. 430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators subsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, even if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. Similarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in the pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous poietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, however, though the expression occurs in Aristotle’s De anima, its reference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often appears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do with the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous literature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous pathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This paper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- platonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and clarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Di0rd034eeOOHeY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"894","_score":null,"_source":{"id":894,"authors_free":[{"id":1317,"entry_id":894,"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}},{"id":1319,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1320,"entry_id":894,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"},"abstract":"In 1911 H. Kurfess obtained a doctorate from the University of \r\nT\u00fcbingen with a dissertation on the history of the interpretation of nous \r\npoietikos and nous pathetikos} Notoriously the expression nous poietikos \r\nnever occurs in the text of Aristotle, but its derivation from De mim. \r\n430*11-12 is an easy step, and when philosophers and commentators \r\nsubsequently discuss it, we know what it is that they are talking about, \r\neven if its nature and status remained, and remain, controversial. \r\nSimilarly nouspathetikos, or rather ho pathetikos nous, occurs only once in \r\nthe pages of Aristotle, but appears often, if less frequently than nous \r\npoietikos, in the texts of his successors and interpreters. In its case, \r\nhowever, though the expression occurs in Aristotle\u2019s De anima, its \r\nreference is unclear. To aggravate matters, nous pathetikos quite often \r\nappears in his successors in contexts which seem to have nothing to do \r\nwith the intellect. Yet while nous poietikos has generated an enormous \r\nliterature from the ancient world up until today, the phrase nous \r\npathetikos has received nothing like the attention of its partner. This \r\npaper will examine some of its uses in both commentators and Neo- \r\nplatonist philosophers in the hope of explaining its appearance and \r\nclarifying its meaning. [Introduction, p. 191]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Di0rd034eeOOHeY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":894,"section_of":354,"pages":"191-205","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Nous path\u00eatikos in later Greek philosophy"]}
Title | On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy |
Pages | 55-78 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tuominen, Miira |
Editor(s) | Silva, José Filipe |
Translator(s) |
Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle’s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls ‘experience’. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle’s theory. While the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle’s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle’s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1506","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1506,"authors_free":[{"id":2616,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":434,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tuominen, Miira","free_first_name":"Miira","free_last_name":"Tuominen","norm_person":{"id":434,"first_name":"Miira","last_name":"Tuominen","full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2617,"entry_id":1506,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":559,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","free_last_name":"Silva","norm_person":{"id":559,"first_name":"Jos\u00e9 Filipe","last_name":"Silva","full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050222717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ancient and late ancient theories of perception are often described by a generalisation according to which Aristotle held a passive theory whereas Plato, the Platonists and the Neoplatonists supposed perception to be something active. I shall argue that, despite this general difference, there are important points of convergence in the theories of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic commentators. First, the notion of activity is important for Aristotle\u2019s theory as well. Perception not only is an activity (energeia) for Aristotle. It is a perfect activity, the perfection of which is the activity itself and is thus not dependent on an external product. Further, the reception of forms without matter is by no means an exhaustive description of perceptual cognition in Aristotle. The sensitive soul is also capable of memory, imagination, and non-universal generalisation Aristotle calls \u2018experience\u2019. Human beings who have reason also make perceptual judgments that, however, are not identified with perceptions in Aristotle\u2019s theory.\r\n\r\nWhile the Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle\u2019s De anima modified his theory in several ways and underlined the activity of the soul, I contend that they also maintained some of Aristotle\u2019s core assumptions. By contrast to Aristotle, they identified perception with rational perceptual judgments. However, I argue that they still retained the assumption that there also is sensation of external objects but ascribed this to the sense organism rather than the sensitive soul. The point is rather clear in Pseudo-Simplicius and I also argue that it is likely that Philoponus maintained a similar view. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zXcOOevnjv8RyOa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":434,"full_name":"Tuominen, Miira","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":559,"full_name":"Silva, Jos\u00e9 Filipe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1506,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":1506,"section_of":1507,"pages":"55-78","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1507,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Active Perception in the History of Philosophy From Plato to Modern Philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The aim of the present work is to show the roots of the conception of perception as an active process, tracing the history of its development from Plato to modern philosophy. The contributors inquire into what activity is taken to mean in different theories, challenging traditional historical accounts of perception that stress the passivity of percipients in coming to know the external world. Special attention is paid to the psychological and physiological mechanisms of perception, rational and non-rational perception and the role of awareness in the perceptual process. Perception has often been conceived as a process in which the passive aspects - such as the reception of sensory stimuli - were stressed and the active ones overlooked. However, during recent decades research in cognitive science and philosophy of mind has emphasized the activity of the subject in the process of sense perception, often associating this activity to the notions of attention and intentionality. Although it is recognized that there are ancient roots to the view that perception is fundamentally active, the history remains largely unexplored. The book is directed to all those interested in contemporary debates in the fields of philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology who would like to become acquainted with the historical background of active perception, but for historical reliability the aim is to make no compromises. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QMx2DVooYGq5eIs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1507,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Springer","series":"Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["On Activity and Passivity in Perception: Aristotle, Philoponus, and Pseudo-Simplicius"]}
Title | Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1983 |
Published in | Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung |
Pages | 113-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Irmscher, Johannes , Müller, Reimar |
Translator(s) |
Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in späteren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bezüglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von Körpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden Körpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erklärung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer Körper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erklärungen der Realität streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verständnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird erörtert, ob Ort ein räumliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf Körper haben. Spätere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gefH5Atxe7LieDs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"451","_score":null,"_source":{"id":451,"authors_free":[{"id":605,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":606,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":352,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","free_first_name":"Johannes","free_last_name":"Irmscher","norm_person":{"id":352,"first_name":"Johannes","last_name":"Irmscher","full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119489201","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":607,"entry_id":451,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":353,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","free_first_name":"Reimar","free_last_name":"M\u00fcller","norm_person":{"id":353,"first_name":"Reimar","last_name":"M\u00fcller","full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/106717707","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie","main_title":{"title":"Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"},"abstract":"Der Text diskutiert die aristotelische Perspektive zu Ort und Raum sowie die Interpretationen, die Simplikios in sp\u00e4teren neuplatonischen Kommentaren dazu geliefert hat. Die Studie widmet sich drei Hauptfragen bez\u00fcglich des Orts: ob er ein Bestandteil von K\u00f6rpern ist, ob er ein Zwischenraum zwischen umgebenden K\u00f6rpern ist und welche Bedeutung der Ort hat und welchen Einfluss er auf die Dinge hat. Die aristotelische Physik strebt nach einer grundlegenden Erkl\u00e4rung der sinnlichen Welt und untersucht die Essenz der Bewegung, die Zusammensetzung physischer K\u00f6rper, Notwendigkeit, Zufall, Unendlichkeit, Ort und Zeit. Der Artikel vergleicht zudem Physik und Metaphysik und betont, dass beide nach umfassenden Erkl\u00e4rungen der Realit\u00e4t streben. Die Untersuchung beleuchtet das aristotelische Verst\u00e4ndnis von Ort und Raum und unterstreicht die Wechselwirkung zwischen Ort und der Struktur physischer Objekte. Es wird er\u00f6rtert, ob Ort ein r\u00e4umliches Substrat oder eine Form ist und welche Bedeutung die Lokalisierung und ihr Einfluss auf K\u00f6rper haben. Sp\u00e4tere neuplatonische Kommentare, insbesondere die von Simplikios, haben Aristoteles' Ideen zu diesen Themen kritisch bewertet und weiterentwickelt. [Introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1983","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gefH5Atxe7LieDs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":352,"full_name":"Irmscher, Johannes","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":353,"full_name":"M\u00fcller, Reimar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":451,"section_of":325,"pages":"113-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":325,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles als Wissenschaftstheoretiker. Eine Aufsatzsammlung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Irmscher_M\u00fcller1983","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1983","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1983","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A1XXLVpd3w2XvXY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":325,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Akademie-Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Ort und Raum nach Aristoteles und Simplikios. Eine philosophische Topologie"]}
Title | Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1971 |
Published in | God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy |
Pages | 16-32 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Whittaker, John H. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical Parmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which have survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as was shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, which Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not taught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/otytaZVpHsVfMmh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"439","_score":null,"_source":{"id":439,"authors_free":[{"id":589,"entry_id":439,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":411,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Whittaker, John H.","free_first_name":"John H.","free_last_name":"Whittaker","norm_person":{"id":411,"first_name":"John H.","last_name":"Whittaker","full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124441203","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5","main_title":{"title":"Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"},"abstract":"I would conclude that no knowledge of the teaching of the historical \r\nParmenides can be safely derived from the versions of fr. 8, 5 which \r\nhave survived. One can, however, assert with complete conviction, as \r\nwas shown at the outset, that the doctrine of non-durational eternity, \r\nwhich Neoplatonists associated with both versions of the line, was not \r\ntaught by the historical Parmenides. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":2,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/otytaZVpHsVfMmh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":411,"full_name":"Whittaker, John H.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":439,"section_of":144,"pages":"16-32","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":144,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"God Time Being: Two Studies in the Transcendental Tradition in Greek Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Whittaker1971b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1971","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1971","abstract":"Es geht um die im Platonismus entwickelte Vorstellung einer Gottheit eigenen\r\nzeitlosen, zeit3berlegenen Ewigkeit, die von Plotin aus (Enneaden III 7) die abend-\r\nlindische Theologie und Mystik stark beeinfluf3t hat. Zugrunde liegt Platons\r\nSpekulation 3ber Aion und Chronos, Timaios 73 c-38 c; ausformuliert ist die\r\nThese vom ewigen Jetzt fur unsere Kenntnis erstmals im mittleren Platonismus\r\n(Plutarch, De E ap. Delph. 393 A-C). Doch hat sie der Neuplatonismus - sicher-\r\nlich zu Unrecht - bereits in ein beruhmtes Parmenides-Fragment (8, 5 D.-Kr., wo\r\nes vom Sein heift, dag ,alles jetzt zusammen ist\", nach U. Hoelscher) hinein-\r\ngelesen. Der Verf., der diese Oberlieferungsverhiltnisse klarend darlegt, unterzieht\r\ndas Fragment im ersten Teil seiner Arbeit einer scharfsinnigen, reich dokumen-\r\ntierten Analyse. Dabei wird die Ansicht begrundet, dai3 die Texte unserer spht-\r\nantiken Zeugen (Simplikios einerseits, die vier alexandrinischen Ausleger andrer-\r\nseits) nicht iber jeden Zweifel erhaben sind. Es k6nnte sein, daf3 bei Simplikios\r\n- dem die modernen Ausgaben zu folgen pflegen - eine neuplatonische Adaption\r\ndes parmenideischen Wortlauts vorliegt, so daf die uberlieferte Form von Parm.\r\n8, 5 fur die Ermittlung der Lehre des grof3enEleaten ausscheiden muf3te - ein fur\r\ndie Vorsokratikerforschung recht erhebliches Ergebnis. - In einer zweiten Unter-\r\nsuchung geht der Verf. dem gleichen Motiv (,Gottes ewiges Heute': der Leser der\r\naugustinischen Confessionen hat es aus dem grofartigen Lobpreis XI 13 in Erinne-\r\nrung) bei Philon von Alexandria nach, wobei sich ein belehrender Einblick in die\r\nplatonistisdhe Tradition ergibt (verwunderlich, daf3 Clemens von Alexandria nach\r\nMigne's Patrologie, Maximos von Tyros nach der alten Dibner'sdlen Ausgabe\r\nzitiert werden). Auch aristotelische und stoische Einflusse werden gepruft. W. stellt\r\nfest, daf3 die meisten Philonstellen, die man bisher im Sinn der neuplatonischen\r\nLehre von einer zeit\u00fcberlegenen Ewigkeit gedeutet hatte, anders zu erklaren\r\nsind; eine Ausnahme scheint in einer allegorischen Auslegung des Alten Testaments\r\n(zu Levit. 2, 14) vorzuliegen (de sacrif. 76). Es bleibt dabei, daf3 das weitreidiende\r\nThema in voller Klarheit erstmals in Plutarchs ob. gen. Dialog angesprochen wird;\r\ner hangt sicher mit dem seit Ende des 1. Jh. v. Chr. wieder rege gewordenen\r\nStudium des platonischen Timaios zusammen, welches in dem Kommentar des\r\nAlexandriners Eudoros, eines pythagoreisierenden Platonikers, moglicherweiseeine\r\nQuelle Plutarchs hervorgebracht hat (hier ware auf eine den Problemen des mitt-\r\nleren Platonismus gewidmete Arbeit H. Dbrrie's hinzuweisen gewesen, in: Les\r\nSourdes de Plotin, Entresiens sur L'Antiquite Classique, t. V, 1957 193 it).\" (Review, H. Strohm)","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gmCTvOKY6YxDRe4","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":144,"pubplace":"Oslo","publisher":"Universitetsforlaget","series":"Symbolae Osloenses","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Parmenides, Fr. 8, 5"]}
Title | Parménide d'Élée chez les Néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Études sur Parménide, Tome II: Problèmes d’interprétation |
Pages | 294-313 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Guérard, Christian |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
«Le néoplatonisme, écrit J. Trouillard, succède au ‘moyen platonisme’ le jour où les platoniciens se mettent à chercher dans le Parménide le secret de la philosophie de Platon»¹. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut même dire que la lecture néoplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la première hypothèse, est le Néoplatonisme lui-même². Sans revenir davantage sur le rôle considérable du Parménide chez Plotin³, bornons-nous à rappeler qu’il a été commenté de façon systématique par Porphyre⁴, puis, comme en témoigne Proclus⁵, par Amélius, Théodore d’Asiné, Jamblique, l’obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d’Athènes et Syrianus. À son tour, le Lycien a rédigé un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu’il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Théologie platonicienne. De même, les deux œuvres rassemblées par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem⁶ montrent l’importance du dialogue chez Damascius. Cette relecture du Parménide a posé bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqué l’influence d’idées orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d’avoir « sombré dans l’irrationalisme ». Une telle attitude, déjà fort visible chez V. Cousin⁷, l’éditeur même de Proclus, malheureusement demeure⁸. En fait, chez Plotin, l’orientalisme se limiterait au plus à l’aspiration mystique⁹ : la définition du Bien (épékeina tês ousias) est dans la République, VI 509B9, et les spéculations néopythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l’Un du Parménide le Principe de tout¹⁰. Il ne restait qu’à faire le lien, peut-être en retrouvant ainsi la pensée de Speusippe¹¹, mais, sans aucun doute, en s’opposant au platonisme de l’époque. Au IIᵉ siècle notamment, le Parménide était considéré comme une œuvre « logique », un exercice éristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique mégarique. C’était l’opinion des aristotéliciens dont Alexandre d’Aphrodise¹², et aussi celle d’Albinus¹³, par exemple. Pour presque tous¹⁴, le dialogue n’était qu’un jeu discursif employant la méthode des Topiques d’Aristote¹⁵. Il était admis qu’il s’agissait d’une réfutation de l’éléatisme, et, dans la première hypothèse en particulier, d’une réplique ironique de Gorgias¹⁶. La conception néoplatonicienne n’était pas très aisée à soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des réalités sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parménide ? D’ailleurs, l’hypothèse est-elle celle de l’Éléate¹⁷ ? Enfin, connaissait-il l’Un avant l’être et la théologie négative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse révéler les choses les plus hautes si le Parménide du Poème n’a rien à voir avec le personnage de Platon ? Devant ces questions, la figure de l’Éléate prenait un relief nouveau nécessitant à son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parménide allait s’inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au néoplatonisme, et qui, d’une certaine manière, le définit. [introduction p. 294-295] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8WXrV6XuPyldosH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"530","_score":null,"_source":{"id":530,"authors_free":[{"id":746,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":150,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","norm_person":{"id":150,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Gu\u00e9rard","full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":747,"entry_id":530,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"\u00abLe n\u00e9oplatonisme, \u00e9crit J. Trouillard, succ\u00e8de au \u2018moyen platonisme\u2019 le jour o\u00f9 les platoniciens se mettent \u00e0 chercher dans le Parm\u00e9nide le secret de la philosophie de Platon\u00bb\u00b9. Effectivement, en paraphrasant Proclus, on peut m\u00eame dire que la lecture n\u00e9oplatonicienne du dialogue, et avant tout de la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se, est le N\u00e9oplatonisme lui-m\u00eame\u00b2.\r\n\r\nSans revenir davantage sur le r\u00f4le consid\u00e9rable du Parm\u00e9nide chez Plotin\u00b3, bornons-nous \u00e0 rappeler qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 comment\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on syst\u00e9matique par Porphyre\u2074, puis, comme en t\u00e9moigne Proclus\u2075, par Am\u00e9lius, Th\u00e9odore d\u2019Asin\u00e9, Jamblique, l\u2019obscur philosophe de Rhodes, Plutarque d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et Syrianus. \u00c0 son tour, le Lycien a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 un commentaire probablement complet du dialogue qu\u2019il a repris dans son ouvrage final, la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne. De m\u00eame, les deux \u0153uvres rassembl\u00e9es par C.E. Ruelle sous le titre Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem\u2076 montrent l\u2019importance du dialogue chez Damascius.\r\n\r\nCette relecture du Parm\u00e9nide a pos\u00e9 bien des questions aux historiens de la philosophie. On a alors invoqu\u00e9 l\u2019influence d\u2019id\u00e9es orientales. Il fallait, semble-t-il, excuser des esprits aussi exceptionnels d\u2019avoir \u00ab sombr\u00e9 dans l\u2019irrationalisme \u00bb. Une telle attitude, d\u00e9j\u00e0 fort visible chez V. Cousin\u2077, l\u2019\u00e9diteur m\u00eame de Proclus, malheureusement demeure\u2078.\r\n\r\nEn fait, chez Plotin, l\u2019orientalisme se limiterait au plus \u00e0 l\u2019aspiration mystique\u2079 : la d\u00e9finition du Bien (\u00e9p\u00e9keina t\u00eas ousias) est dans la R\u00e9publique, VI 509B9, et les sp\u00e9culations n\u00e9opythagoriciennes avaient reconnu dans l\u2019Un du Parm\u00e9nide le Principe de tout\u00b9\u2070. Il ne restait qu\u2019\u00e0 faire le lien, peut-\u00eatre en retrouvant ainsi la pens\u00e9e de Speusippe\u00b9\u00b9, mais, sans aucun doute, en s\u2019opposant au platonisme de l\u2019\u00e9poque.\r\n\r\nAu II\u1d49 si\u00e8cle notamment, le Parm\u00e9nide \u00e9tait consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une \u0153uvre \u00ab logique \u00bb, un exercice \u00e9ristique ou un pastiche de la sophistique m\u00e9garique. C\u2019\u00e9tait l\u2019opinion des aristot\u00e9liciens dont Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise\u00b9\u00b2, et aussi celle d\u2019Albinus\u00b9\u00b3, par exemple. Pour presque tous\u00b9\u2074, le dialogue n\u2019\u00e9tait qu\u2019un jeu discursif employant la m\u00e9thode des Topiques d\u2019Aristote\u00b9\u2075. Il \u00e9tait admis qu\u2019il s\u2019agissait d\u2019une r\u00e9futation de l\u2019\u00e9l\u00e9atisme, et, dans la premi\u00e8re hypoth\u00e8se en particulier, d\u2019une r\u00e9plique ironique de Gorgias\u00b9\u2076.\r\n\r\nLa conception n\u00e9oplatonicienne n\u2019\u00e9tait pas tr\u00e8s ais\u00e9e \u00e0 soutenir : si le dialogue porte sur des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s sublimes, pourquoi les faire exposer par Parm\u00e9nide ? D\u2019ailleurs, l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se est-elle celle de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate\u00b9\u2077 ? Enfin, connaissait-il l\u2019Un avant l\u2019\u00eatre et la th\u00e9ologie n\u00e9gative ? Comment donc admettre que le dialogue puisse r\u00e9v\u00e9ler les choses les plus hautes si le Parm\u00e9nide du Po\u00e8me n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec le personnage de Platon ?\r\n\r\nDevant ces questions, la figure de l\u2019\u00c9l\u00e9ate prenait un relief nouveau n\u00e9cessitant \u00e0 son tour une lecture nouvelle. Nous allons tenter de montrer comment, principalement chez Plotin et Proclus, Parm\u00e9nide allait s\u2019inscrire dans la perspective historique propre au n\u00e9oplatonisme, et qui, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, le d\u00e9finit. [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8WXrV6XuPyldosH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":150,"full_name":"Gu\u00e9rard, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":530,"section_of":372,"pages":"294-313","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":372,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u00c9tudes sur Parm\u00e9nide, Tome II: Probl\u00e8mes d\u2019interpr\u00e9tation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ojgpMQbpMPY4GeV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":372,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Parm\u00e9nide d'\u00c9l\u00e9e chez les N\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
Title | Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism |
Pages | 323-338 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Remes, Pauliina , Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla |
Translator(s) |
Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive. Moreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle’s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia: "Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight—so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself." (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn) The distinction between perception and perception of perception—perceptual consciousness—is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed. Consequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible’s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing. On this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception. How shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to. In the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved. On the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"880","_score":null,"_source":{"id":880,"authors_free":[{"id":1291,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1292,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":118,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Remes, Pauliina","free_first_name":"Pauliina","free_last_name":"Remes","norm_person":{"id":118,"first_name":"Pauliina","last_name":"Remes","full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103255665","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1293,"entry_id":880,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":119,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","free_first_name":"Svetla","free_last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","norm_person":{"id":119,"first_name":"Svetla","last_name":"Slaveva-Griffin","full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137698070","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators","main_title":{"title":"Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators"},"abstract":"Most Neoplatonists were convinced that the perceptual activity of the senses is a conscious activity, including even the reception of primary sense qualities such as colors and sounds. This means that we cannot perceive anything unless we are aware of the specific impact exerted by the sense object upon the sense organ. The commentators can also rely on the doctrine found in Aristotle's Physics 7.2, according to which what is distinctive of perceptual alterations is that the subject is aware of them. The problem with that discussion was that it did not explain why some alterations rather than others involve awareness. Why are we supposed to think that sense perception implies awareness whereas other forms of qualitative change do not? For this reason, the discussion seemed to leave mysterious the possession by the sense organs of the capacity to perceive.\r\n\r\nMoreover, an important part of the awareness involved in sense perception is that we are aware not only of the specific impact but also of the perceptual activity of our sensory power. The root of the problem is exposed in Aristotle\u2019s De Anima. In 3.2, Aristotle insists that we do perceive that we perceive. He seems to take it for granted that our perceptual system is capable of grasping its own operations. At the beginning of De Anima 3.2, he presents the following aporia:\r\n\r\n\"Since we perceive that we see and hear, it must either be by sight that one perceives that one sees or by another [sense]. But in that case, there will be the same [sense] for sight and the color which is the subject for sight\u2014so that either there will be two senses for the same thing or {the sense} itself will be the one for itself.\" (425b 12-16, trans. Hamlyn)\r\n\r\nThe distinction between perception and perception of perception\u2014perceptual consciousness\u2014is here taken for granted, and the fact that a subject perceives that he perceives is something that calls for explanation. In principle, the problem posed by Physics 7.2 is now resolved. On the account of the De Anima, in order for the subject to be aware of it, sense perception must be understood as a change that takes place in the perceiving subject. According to a general principle of change, formulated in Physics 3.3 (202a21-b5), the change produced by some cause is always in the thing that is changed.\r\n\r\nConsequently, as a kind of qualitative change, sense perception takes place in the perceiving subject. Moreover, sense perception implies perceptual awareness because sense perception is a reception of sensible forms coming from without. Perceptual awareness comes about when the sense apprehends the sensible forms in itself and, on account of this, fulfills its function as sense. We perceive the change within ourselves. The two processes are one, differing only in account. For it is by receiving the form from the things perceived, which are outside, that we apprehend them, but it is by the sense having the form of the things perceived in itself that perceptual awareness comes about. To take the example of seeing, we see something in virtue of apprehending the perceptible\u2019s form. By apprehending the form, the sense of sight sees, and at the same time, it comes to see itself seeing.\r\n\r\nOn this account, sense perception is intimately linked to a certain kind of awareness. In sense perception, we simultaneously apprehend both the thing perceived and the activity of the sense in relation to the thing perceived. Perceptual awareness is tied to the fact that in sense perception, we must be aware of the reception of external influence. Hence, the reflexive nature of sense perception is somehow included in the activity of grasping the primary objects of sense perception.\r\n\r\nHow shall we harmonize the two accounts? After all, it seems that in the De Anima, Alexander emphasizes the role of the common sense power, whereas in Quaestiones 3.7, he derives perceptual awareness from the general nature of sense perception. My suggestion is that the two accounts are complementary. The Quaestiones offer a general account of how perceptual awareness is possible. The reception of sensible forms requires awareness. Following Aristotle, Alexander assumes that this kind of awareness belongs to the perceptual faculty. It is not the rational faculty that such a task has been assigned to.\r\n\r\nIn the De Anima, Alexander specifies the thesis by pointing out that perceptual awareness comes about by virtue of the activity of the center of our perceptual system. It may remain unclear as to what arguments led him to dismiss the possibility that the particular senses might be able to grasp the activity of their own. There seem to be two points that could not have been accepted, for different reasons, and they also marked the limits within which Alexander's argument must have moved.\r\n\r\nOn the one hand, he accepted the Aristotelian thesis that perceptual awareness is the task of the perceptual system. On the other hand, he might have had doubts about the ability of the particular senses to grasp their own activities. Even if the act of seeing is somehow colored (De Anima 92.27-31), there must be a difference between the perceiver and the perceived. The difference is within the perceptual system and lies between the particular sense and the common sense power. [introduction p. 325-326]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wW0wlLHdi7RUUn2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":118,"full_name":"Remes, Pauliina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":119,"full_name":"Slaveva-Griffin, Svetla","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":880,"section_of":345,"pages":"323-338","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":345,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Remes\/Slaveva-Griffin2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is an authoritative and comprehensive survey of the most important issues and developments in one of the fastest growing areas of research in ancient philosophy. An international team of scholars situates and re-evaluates Neoplatonism within the history of ancient philosophy and thought, and explores its influence on philosophical and religious schools worldwide. Over thirty chapters are divided into seven clear parts:\r\n\r\n (Re)sources, instruction and interaction\r\n Methods and Styles of Exegesis\r\n Metaphysics and Metaphysical Perspectives\r\n Language, Knowledge, Soul, and Self\r\n Nature: Physics, Medicine and Biology\r\n Ethics, Political Theory and Aesthetics\r\n The legacy of Neoplatonism.\r\n\r\nThe Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism is a major reference source for all students and scholars in Neoplatonism and ancient philosophy, as well as researchers in the philosophy of science, ethics, aesthetics and religion. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/i2TdBQo2LLSOZ3S","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":345,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Perceptual awareness in the ancient commentators"]}
Title | Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 165-173 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sheppard, Anne D. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle’s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought—a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call "imagination," at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle’s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle’s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor. It used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form "I imagine that P" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images. For example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with "non-paradigmatic sensory experiences"—phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai ("It looks like an X"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle’s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle’s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions. More recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum’s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as "the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception." Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image. My concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images. In this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima—those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus’ commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus’ own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus’ views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lzX0JUImw1D2csY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1021","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1021,"authors_free":[{"id":1537,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1538,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1539,"entry_id":1021,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3","main_title":{"title":"Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s treatment of phantasia in De anima 3.3 is both suggestive and tantalizing: suggestive because Aristotle seems to be trying to describe a capacity of the mind that cannot be identified either with sense-perception or with rational thought\u2014a capacity which, if it is not the same as what we call \"imagination,\" at least has much in common with it. It is tantalizing because the chapter flits from one point to another and is difficult to interpret as a consistent whole. There have been several recent attempts to make sense of the chapter and relate it to Aristotle\u2019s other remarks about phantasia elsewhere. I shall briefly discuss three of these, which all make some use of modern discussions of imagination. In all three cases, the way they interpret Aristotle\u2019s position is influenced by the account of imagination they themselves favor.\r\n\r\nIt used to be taken for granted that imagination involves having mental images, but this assumption was among the many challenged in the works of Wittgenstein and in Gilbert Ryle\u2019s The Concept of Mind. It is now more fashionable to analyze propositions of the form \"I imagine that P\" than to inquire into hypothetical pictures in the mind. Accordingly, some current interpreters of Aristotle claim that he is interested in the logic of the verb phainesthai, or in a power that interprets the data of perception, rather than in mental images.\r\n\r\nFor example, Malcolm Schofield claims that Aristotle is concerned with the verb phainesthai and the sense in which it expresses a non-committal attitude toward the veridical character of sensory or quasi-sensory experiences. According to Schofield, Aristotle is concerned with \"non-paradigmatic sensory experiences\"\u2014phenomena that make one say cautiously phainetai (\"It looks like an X\"). Mental imagery is only one type of such experience and is not Aristotle\u2019s main concern. Martha Nussbaum also emphasizes the connection with the verb phainesthai and explicitly attacks the view that mental images are central to either Aristotelian phantasia or our notion of imagination. Nussbaum claims that Aristotle has a very general interest in how things appear to living creatures. She examines Aristotle\u2019s account of the role of phantasia in animal movement and its relationship to aisthesis and argues that, for Aristotle, aisthesis is simply the passive reception of sense-impressions, while the role of phantasia is to interpret such impressions.\r\n\r\nMore recently, Deborah Modrak has argued for an interpretation of Aristotelian phantasia that once again makes mental images important. She argues against Nussbaum\u2019s interpretation of aisthesis as purely passive and describes phantasia as \"the awareness of a sensory content under conditions that are not conducive to veridical perception.\" Such awareness, she argues, can perfectly well take the form of a mental image.\r\n\r\nMy concern here is not so much to adjudicate among these rival modern interpretations of Aristotle as to inquire what light the Neoplatonist commentators on the De anima throw on the issues raised. It might be thought that this is a futile enterprise, given the very different presuppositions with which the ancient commentators approached Aristotle. Henry Blumenthal has demonstrated in a number of articles that these commentators read Aristotle through Platonizing spectacles and that their interpretation of his psychology is colored by their Platonist assumptions. Nevertheless, if we examine the discussions of De anima 3.3 by the Neoplatonists, some interesting light is cast on the question of whether phantasia involves mental images.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I shall confine myself to the two Neoplatonist commentaries on the De anima\u2014those attributed to Simplicius and Philoponus. (Themistius, who was not a Neoplatonist, would require separate discussion.) Both commentaries raise problems of authorship, although these do not significantly affect the present inquiry. F. Bossier and C. Steel have argued that the commentary ascribed to Simplicius is not by him but by his contemporary Priscianus Lydus. Whether this is correct or not, the commentary is a product of sixth-century Athenian Neoplatonism. Book 3 of the Greek version of Philoponus\u2019 commentary has been much more conclusively demonstrated to be by the later Alexandrian commentator Stephanus. Part of a Latin translation of Philoponus\u2019 own work on De anima 3 survives, but his comments on 3.3 are not preserved. Those I shall be discussing are by Stephanus. (Where it is possible to compare the two commentators, the views of Stephanus are sometimes quite close to those of Philoponus, so it is likely that Philoponus\u2019 views on 3.3 were not very different from those we find in Stephanus.) [introduction p. 165-167]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lzX0JUImw1D2csY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1021,"section_of":354,"pages":"165-173","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Phantasia and Mental Images: Neoplatonist Interpretations of De Anima, 3.3"]}
Title | Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle |
Pages | 48-75 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Blackwell, Constance , Kusukawa, Sachiko |
Translator(s) |
My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance scholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with a few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the first Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":551,"authors_free":[{"id":775,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2098,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":78,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blackwell, Constance","free_first_name":"Constance","free_last_name":"Blackwell","norm_person":{"id":78,"first_name":"Constance","last_name":"Blackwell","full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2099,"entry_id":551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":79,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","free_first_name":"Sachiko","free_last_name":"Kusukawa","norm_person":{"id":79,"first_name":"Sachiko","last_name":"Kusukawa","full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158263708","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan","main_title":{"title":"Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"},"abstract":"My aim in this paper is to discuss some examples of the problems Renaissance \r\nscholars encountered in this regard [i.e. he great advantage of having Greek texts available in print]. In this first section, I will be concerned with \r\na few sixteenth-century scholars and the close attention which they paid to the \r\nfirst Greek printed edition of the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tTVeJQfmUSW2VyM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":78,"full_name":"Blackwell, Constance","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":79,"full_name":"Kusukawa, Sachiko","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":551,"section_of":261,"pages":"48-75","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":261,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Conversations with Aristotle","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blackwell\/Kusukawa1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"This volume offers an important re-evaluation of early modern philosophy. It takes issue with the received notion of a \u2019revolution\u2019 in philosophical thought in the 17th-century, making the case for treating the 16th and 17th centuries together. Taking up Charles Schmitt\u2019s formulation of the many \u2019Aristotelianisms\u2019 of the period, the papers bring out the variety and richness of the approaches to Aristotle, rather than treating his as a homogeneous system of thought. Based on much new research, they provide case studies of how philosophers used, developed, and reacted to the framework of Aristotelian logic, categories and distinctions, and demonstrate that Aristotelianism possessed both the flexibility and the dynamism to exert a continuing impact - even among such noted \u2019anti-Aristotelians\u2019 as Descartes and Hobbes. This constant engagement can indeed be termed \u2019conversations with Aristotle\u2019.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/In5fPTWQezWnPei","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":261,"pubplace":"Aldershot \u2013 Hants, U.K. \u2013 Brookfield, Vt.","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philology and philosophy in the margins of early printed editions of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan"]}
Title | Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece |
Pages | 173-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method of the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with some justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on the theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these terms refer to the ‘early’ stages of Greek culture when w'riting found its way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis cuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around 530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period is to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con scious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on previous attempts at exegesis. [p. 174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"974","_score":null,"_source":{"id":974,"authors_free":[{"id":1471,"entry_id":974,"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}},{"id":1472,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1473,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations","main_title":{"title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"},"abstract":"This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method \r\nof the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with \r\nsome justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on \r\nthe theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these \r\nterms refer to the \u2018early\u2019 stages of Greek culture when w'riting found \r\nits way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis\u00ad\r\ncuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around \r\n530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period \r\nis to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con\u00ad\r\nscious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on \r\nprevious attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":974,"section_of":293,"pages":"173-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":293,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Foley\/Worthington2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"]}
Title | Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition |
Pages | 1-22 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Morrison, Donald R. |
Editor(s) | Keßler, Eckhard , Di Liscia, Daniel A. , Methuen, Charlotte |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but crucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by which the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical things. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method for acquiring first principles in physics: “Clearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the principles [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) rather than apodeictic (apodeiktike)."... [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"834","_score":null,"_source":{"id":834,"authors_free":[{"id":1238,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":266,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","free_first_name":"Donald R.","free_last_name":"Morisson","norm_person":{"id":266,"first_name":"Donald R.","last_name":"Morrison","full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/14341285X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2116,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":267,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","free_first_name":"Eckhard","free_last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":267,"first_name":"Eckhard","last_name":"Ke\u00dfler","full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117756431","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2117,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":268,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","free_first_name":"Daniel A.","free_last_name":"Di Liscia","norm_person":{"id":268,"first_name":"Daniel A.","last_name":"Di Liscia","full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140744282","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2118,"entry_id":834,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":269,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","free_first_name":"Charlotte","free_last_name":"Methuen","norm_person":{"id":269,"first_name":"Charlotte","last_name":"Methuen","full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137191812","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall concentrate on a small but \r\ncrucial episode in the development of one significant issue: the method by \r\nwhich the physicist acquires knowledge of the principles of physical \r\nthings. n his commentary on the Physics, the sixth-century Neoplatonist \r\nphilosopher Simplicius puts forward sign-inference as a general method \r\nfor acquiring first principles in physics: \u201cClearly, the grasp (gnosis) of the \r\nprinciples [of physical things] is through necessary signs (tekmeriodes) \r\nrather than apodeictic (apodeiktike).\"... [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":266,"full_name":"Morrison, Donald R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":267,"full_name":"Ke\u00dfler, Eckhard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":268,"full_name":"Di Liscia, Daniel A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":269,"full_name":"Methuen, Charlotte","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":834,"section_of":298,"pages":"1-22","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Method and Order in Renaissance Philosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Liscia1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The volume results from a seminar sponsored by the \u2019Foundation for Intellectual History\u2019 at the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenb\u00fcttel, in 1992. Starting with the theory of regressus as displayed in its most developed form by William Wallace, these papers enter the vast field of the Renaissance discussion on method as such in its historical and systematical context. This is confined neither to the notion of method in the strict sense, nor to the Renaissance in its exact historical limits, nor yet to the Aristotelian tradition as a well defined philosophical school, but requires a new scholarly approach. Thus - besides Galileo, Zabarella and their circles, which are regarded as being crucial for the \u2019emergence of modern science\u2019 in the end of the 16th century - the contributors deal with the ancient and medieval origins as well as with the early modern continuity of the Renaissance concepts of method and with \u2019non-regressive\u2019 methodologies in the various approaches of Renaissance natural philosophy, including the Lutheran and Calvinist traditions.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zVO0hPY4wM83hSQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":298,"pubplace":"Hampshire - Brookfield","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus and Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proof"]}
Title | Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 84-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wolff, Michael |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory can be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, but rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we need not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to new observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to ask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory originally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are exhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such a problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, could not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, times were changing. [Conclusion p. 120] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"720","_score":null,"_source":{"id":720,"authors_free":[{"id":1073,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":364,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wolff, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Wolff","norm_person":{"id":364,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Wolff","full_name":"Wolff, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131523120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1074,"entry_id":720,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"},"abstract":"If we are prepared to assume that the basic presuppositions of impetus theory \r\ncan be traced back not to observational experience which Aristotle missed, \r\nbut rather to a certain concept of man and to certain ethical principles, we \r\nneed not attempt to explain the emergence of the theory solely by reference to \r\nnew observations of falling bodies and the like. Is it not more appropriate to \r\nask about the origin and kind of ethical problem to which impetus theory \r\noriginally helped to provide an answer? The experience that forces are \r\nexhausted in all physical activities of human beings could have been just such \r\na problem. Earlier society, which had left this experience chiefly to slaves, \r\ncould not really have had such a problem. But, by the close of Antiquity, \r\ntimes were changing. [Conclusion p. 120]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/L1tFbjfO8UrPnAp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":364,"full_name":"Wolff, Michael","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":720,"section_of":1383,"pages":"84-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus and the Rise of Preclassical Dynamics"]}
Title | Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 171-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Haas, Frans A. J. de |
Editor(s) | Raalte, Marlein van , van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. |
Translator(s) |
In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle’s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things. Both Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle—namely, “all physical things have principles.” Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things. Unlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9–28) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus’ commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be. This leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus’ insertion (144A 9–28) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument. In this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1297","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1297,"authors_free":[{"id":1890,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":1988,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":154,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","free_first_name":"Marlein","free_last_name":"Raalte, van","norm_person":{"id":154,"first_name":"Marlein van","last_name":"Raalte","full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172515270","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1989,"entry_id":1297,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"},"abstract":"In the new edition of the fragments of Theophrastus, we find two testimonies (144A-B FHS&G) concerned with the first sentence of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. There, Aristotle stated that, since knowledge is always knowledge of principles, the science of physics must look for the principles of physical things.\r\n\r\nBoth Philoponus and Simplicius, in their commentaries on this passage (144A and 144B, respectively), report that Theophrastus supplied the minor premise of the syllogism, which was not mentioned by Aristotle\u2014namely, \u201call physical things have principles.\u201d Moreover, they state that Theophrastus argued for this premise based on the composition of all physical things.\r\n\r\nUnlike Simplicius, Philoponus inserts an account of the notion of composition involved here and devotes special attention to the various ways in which physical forms and powers can be considered composite. This elaboration (144A 9\u201328) had been put between parentheses in the Berlin edition of Philoponus\u2019 commentary, thus suggesting a digression by Philoponus rather than a continuation of an originally Theophrastean argument. As Robert Sharples has informed me, in FHS&G the parentheses were omitted to avoid the impression that these lines had nothing to do with Theophrastus at all; nor was it deemed correct to use parentheses to indicate the flow of the argument. In any case, there is no need to challenge the inclusion of this passage in the source book that FHS&G is intended to be.\r\n\r\nThis leaves us with the question: to what extent can we ascribe the contents of Philoponus\u2019 insertion (144A 9\u201328) to Theophrastus? Professor Laks was the first to raise this question at the Leiden Theophrastus Conference, and he also provided an analysis of the argument.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I want to address the following questions: Is Philoponus reporting Theophrastean thought here or not? And what motive could Philoponus have had to include this passage at this point in his commentary? [introduction p. 171-172]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5LsO2XY3SoVzgrW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":153,"full_name":"de Haas, Frans A. J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":154,"full_name":"Raalte, Marlein van","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1297,"section_of":1298,"pages":"171-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature"]}
Title | Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 210-230 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schmitt, Charles Bernard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
As it is generally accepted, the term ‘Renaissance’ refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the ‘revival’ is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient ‘literary’ texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the ‘Renaissance’ was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality. One aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared. But it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available. The need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio’s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts—and generally delayed by only a few years—was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period. In reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi’s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact—in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology—has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed. During the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle—which for them meant philosophy tout court—frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126–98), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–74), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462–1525), and Soto (1494/5–1560), among many others. Particularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the ‘new science’ of the seventeenth century. Thus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible. Before turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian’s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ub0AryY729JHN5w |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1037","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1037,"authors_free":[{"id":1571,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":284,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","free_first_name":"Charles Bernard","free_last_name":"Schmitt","norm_person":{"id":284,"first_name":"Charles Bernard","last_name":"Schmitt","full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118846744","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1572,"entry_id":1037,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century","main_title":{"title":"Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century"},"abstract":"As it is generally accepted, the term \u2018Renaissance\u2019 refers to a historical period in which there was a revival of interest in the literature, styles, and forms of Classical Antiquity. Though the \u2018revival\u2019 is usually understood to refer specifically to ancient \u2018literary\u2019 texts, there can be no doubt that the specialized technical treatises of philosophy, natural science, mathematics, and medicine played a role equally important, if not more important, in the cultural and intellectual life of the Renaissance. In addition to the rediscovery of the integral texts of Homer and the Greek dramatists, Cicero\u2019s Letters to Atticus, Quintilian, and Lucretius, the fifteenth century also saw the recovery of much of Galen, Theophrastus, Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, Pappus, Diogenes Laertius, and Sextus Empiricus, as well as many additional classical authors of specialized literature. Indeed, the \u2018Renaissance\u2019 was a revival of the technical knowledge bequeathed by Antiquity as much as of works of recognized literary and rhetorical quality.\r\n\r\nOne aspect of the influence of ancient literature on the Renaissance which has received little attention until fairly recently is the role of the Greek commentators on Aristotle. In that vast corpus, most of which is conveniently assembled for us in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, there is a wealth of interpretative and supplementary material, which is of great use not only for an understanding of the Aristotelian text itself but also for understanding its historical context and the philosophical positions that were in competition with those of Aristotle in antiquity. A certain number of the Greek commentaries were known in the Middle Ages, both in the Islamic and in the Christian worlds, but such knowledge was very fragmentary. Only a small portion of the extant commentaries was available in Latin before the sixteenth century. Some of these attained a degree of importance and played a central role in the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century discussions of the soul, for example. These medieval versions are presently being edited in a critical fashion by a group of scholars at Louvain; this series should take its place alongside the Greek texts produced in the last century by the Berlin Academy of Sciences. So far, editions of commentaries by Themistius, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Alexander, and Eustratius have appeared.\r\n\r\nBut it remained for the sixteenth century to make accessible most of the material. For example, less than half of the works attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias contained in the CAG and Supplementum Aristotelicum were available in the Middle Ages, and, among the expositions of Philoponus, only the commentary on the De Anima was available.\r\n\r\nThe need for a comprehensive publication of all of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle was already noted and made a program for the future in Aldo Manuzio\u2019s prefatory letter to the first volume of his editio princeps of Aristotle in 1495. Although Aldo himself did not live to achieve his aim, he did initiate it, and between that date and 1540 nearly the entire Greek corpus was made available to European scholars. Parallel with the publication of the Greek texts\u2014and generally delayed by only a few years\u2014was the publication of Latin translations of the same texts, thus making the material accessible to a much wider readership than the rather restricted group who could cope effectively with the Greek text of the commentators. Most of the Greek editions themselves, as well as the majority of the translations, issued from Venetian presses, though Paris and Lyon served as secondary publication centers. By mid-century essentially everything could be read in Latin, and the impact of the new material can be traced in the Aristotelian literature of the period.\r\n\r\nIn reading the many commentaries on Aristotle and other philosophical works of the sixteenth century, one clearly discerns the rising tide of interest in these expositions across a spectrum of philosophical and scientific topics. Hitherto, the impact of these new sources of information has only imperfectly been charted, primarily with regard to discussions of the soul. Nardi\u2019s fundamental work on Simplicius, the more recent studies on Alexander by Cranz, and on the general Neoplatonism of the commentaries by Mahoney have served to draw attention to the rich vein of material there to be mined. The range of the impact\u2014in logic, natural philosophy, metaphysics, and psychology\u2014has scarcely been charted, nor has the interplay between Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, and medieval and Renaissance Latin interpretations of Aristotle been evaluated and analyzed.\r\n\r\nDuring the second half of the sixteenth century, those who wanted to understand Aristotle\u2014which for them meant philosophy tout court\u2014frequently tried to relate the text of the Stagirite to the varying interpretations of Philoponus, Simplicius, Averroes (1126\u201398), Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225\u201374), John of Jandun (died 1328), Pomponazzi (1462\u20131525), and Soto (1494\/5\u20131560), among many others.\r\n\r\nParticularly little studied has been the impact of the newly available Greek commentators on the Physics. Here is meant primarily Simplicius and Philoponus, both of whom left behind extensive and detailed expositions of that work, neither of which was known directly to Latin writers of the Middle Ages but which were to become available in the sixteenth century. As long ago as Wohlwill and Duhem, it has been known that some of the criticisms and alternative positions put forward in the commentaries on the Physics by the two sixth-century writers later attained importance in the history of the development of physical thought. Moreover, it was also realized by the same historians that the critiques of Aristotle put forward by Simplicius and Philoponus were very similar to some of the positions that became central in the formulation of the \u2018new science\u2019 of the seventeenth century.\r\n\r\nThus far, however, there has been little systematic attempt to consider the reaction of the sixteenth century as a whole to the reorientation made possible by the availability of Simplicius and Philoponus. The story is not simple, and it cannot be covered comprehensively here, though I hope to be able to indicate some lines further research might take. What I shall do is to focus upon Philoponus, whose significance in the story is possibly less than that of Simplicius, but without a full story of the fortune of the Physics of both authors a valid conclusion regarding their relative merits is not possible.\r\n\r\nBefore turning to a consideration of the impact of the Grammarian\u2019s partial commentary on the Physics (only the first four books are integrally extant), I should like to deal briefly with two other points. First, I should like to sketch a portrait of Philoponus as a commentator, emphasizing why what he had to say was of potential importance for the sixteenth century. Secondly, I shall say something general about the recovery and assimilation of his philosophical works in the West down to the sixteenth century. [introduction p. 210-213]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ub0AryY729JHN5w","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":284,"full_name":"Schmitt, Charles Bernard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1037,"section_of":184,"pages":"210-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics in the Sixtheenth Century"]}
Title | Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre |
Pages | 173-194 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher |
Translator(s) |
This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"963","_score":null,"_source":{"id":963,"authors_free":[{"id":1445,"entry_id":963,"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}},{"id":1446,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1447,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"},"abstract":"This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative \u201ccorpus\u201d of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a \u201cnatural by-product\u201d of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":963,"section_of":292,"pages":"173-194","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":292,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kraus\/Stray2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"]}
Title | Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies |
Pages | 227-242 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Parsons, Bethany |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Layne, Danielle, A. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1488","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1488,"authors_free":[{"id":2576,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":552,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Parsons, Bethany","free_first_name":"Bethany","free_last_name":"Parsons","norm_person":{"id":552,"first_name":"Bethany","last_name":"Parsons","full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2577,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2578,"entry_id":1488,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle, A.","free_first_name":"Danielle, A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RBkbZJgg5JiRP2K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":552,"full_name":"Parsons, Bethany","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1488,"section_of":1489,"pages":"227-242","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1489,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonic Pathways: Selected Papers from the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0kL235IRMmorwaZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1489,"pubplace":"Gloucestershire","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy and Commentary: Evaluating Simplicius on the Presocratics"]}
Title | Philosophy in the Age of Justinian |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian |
Pages | 316-340 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Maas, Michael |
Translator(s) |
In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names of nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques tion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of philosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow ering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, (c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc cur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they shaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the period that concerns us. [p. 318] To illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate otherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to establish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we now turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or less open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued that one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions within the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic ular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major schools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ ent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by Syrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, broadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, as far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, the Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, and by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the sixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of interpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio cultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally been a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community attending the Alexandrian philosophers’ lectures and classes (which would temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, as compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less of a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"428","_score":null,"_source":{"id":428,"authors_free":[{"id":577,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":578,"entry_id":428,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":471,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Maas, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Maas","norm_person":{"id":471,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Maas","full_name":"Maas, Michael","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12626094X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"},"abstract":"In order to bring some clarity to the sometimes confusing list of names \r\nof nowadays little-known philosophers active during the period in ques\u00ad\r\ntion, it is necessary to begin with a short prosopography. A history of \r\nphilosophy in the Age ofjustinian must include an account of two tow\u00ad\r\nering but very different figures, Damascius (c. 460-540) and Ammonius, \r\n(c. 440-517 or 526). The philosophical activities of both these men oc\u00ad\r\ncur well before the accession ofjustinian, but through their pupils they \r\nshaped the views and methods of their philosophical successors in the \r\nperiod that concerns us. [p. 318] \r\nTo illustrate the point that commentaries were not written to elucidate \r\notherwise obscure texts but were the preferred genre of discourse to \r\nestablish, negotiate, and criticize substantive philosophical claims, we \r\nnow turn to some of the controversies that were discussed in a more or \r\nless open fashion. In an influential article, Karl Praechter once argued \r\nthat one can distinguish clearly between different schools and directions \r\nwithin the broader Neoplatonic movement in late antiquity.23 In partic\u00ad\r\nular, Praechter argued that the salient difference between the two major \r\nschools, the Athenian and the Alexandrian branch, lay in their differ\u00ad\r\nent exegetical methods. Whereas the Athenian school (represented by \r\nSyrianus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius) was heavily influenced, \r\nbroadly speaking, by Iamblichuss tendency to bring out in any text, \r\nas far as possible, the understanding it offers of the intelligible world, \r\nthe Alexandrian School (represented by Hierocles in the fifth century, \r\nand by Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias, and David in the \r\nsixth) tended toward a more sober and less metaphysical technique of \r\ninterpretation. Praechter connected these observations with two socio\u00ad\r\ncultural differences separating the schools: Alexandria had traditionally \r\nbeen a center of learning in the exact sciences (hence the preference for Aristotle) and possessed a large Christian intellectual community \r\nattending the Alexandrian philosophers\u2019 lectures and classes (which \r\nwould temper the propagation of Platonism as an antigospel). Thus, \r\nas compared to the Athenians, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists were less \r\nof a sect (hairesis) and more of a collegium of higher education. [p. 323-324]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5eGVb60bqhLTv0z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":471,"full_name":"Maas, Michael","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":428,"section_of":17,"pages":"316-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":17,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge companion to the Age of Justinian","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Maas2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"This book introduces the Age of Justinian, the last Roman century and the first flowering of Byzantine culture. Dominated by the policies and personality of emperor Justinian I (527\u2013565), this period of grand achievements and far-reaching failures witnessed the transformation of the Mediterranean world. In this volume, twenty specialists explore the most important aspects of the age including the mechanics and theory of empire, warfare, urbanism, and economy. It also discusses the impact of the great plague, the codification of Roman law, and the many religious upheavals taking place at the time. Consideration is given to imperial relations with the papacy, northern barbarians, the Persians, and other eastern peoples, shedding new light on a dramatic and highly significant historical period. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VO13SyosuR7rCEZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":17,"pubplace":"Cambridge \u2013 New York","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy in the Age of Justinian"]}
Title | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 63-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1526,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"]}
Title | Pietro d’Abano e l’utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) |
Pages | 83-112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Federici-Vescovini, Graziella |
Editor(s) | Brams, Jozef , Vanhamel, Willy |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1136","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1136,"authors_free":[{"id":1710,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":487,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","free_first_name":"Graziella","free_last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","norm_person":{"id":487,"first_name":"Graziella","last_name":"Federici-Vescovini","full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128950552","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2478,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":337,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brams, Jozef","free_first_name":"Jozef","free_last_name":"Brams","norm_person":{"id":337,"first_name":"Jozef","last_name":"Brams","full_name":"Brams, Jozef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145645712","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2479,"entry_id":1136,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":338,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","free_first_name":"Willy","free_last_name":"Vanhamel","norm_person":{"id":338,"first_name":"Willy","last_name":"Vanhamel","full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/141109661","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Km4PwTvVAXA9uOv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":487,"full_name":"Federici-Vescovini, Graziella","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":337,"full_name":"Brams, Jozef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":338,"full_name":"Vanhamel, Willy","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1136,"section_of":326,"pages":"83-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":326,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d\u2019\u00e9tudes \u00e0 l\u2019occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brams1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"T h e following articles are included in this volume: \"Moerbeke, traducteur et inter-\r\nprete: Un texte et une pensee\" by Gerard Verbeke (pp. 1-21); \"Guillaume de Moer-\r\nbeke et la cour pontificale\" by Agostino Paravicini Bagliani (pp. 23-52); \"Note con-\r\ncernant certaines missions qui auraient ete confiees a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by\r\nWilly Vanhamel (pp. 53-56); \"Guillaume de Moerbeke et saint Thomas\" by Carlos\r\nSteel (pp. 57-82); \"Pietro d'Abano e l'utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di\r\nMoerbeke del commento di Simplicio al \/\/ De caelo di Aristotele\" by Graziella Federici\r\nVescovini (pp. 83-106); \"Quelques utilisateurs des textes rares de Moerbeke\r\n(Philopon, Tria opuscula) et particulierement Jacques de Viterbe\" by Louis Jacques\r\nBataillon (pp. 107-12); \"Quelques remarques codicologiques et paleographiques\r\nau sujet du ms. Vaticano Ottob. lat. 1850\" by Robert Wielockx (pp. 113-33);\r\n\"La liste des ceuvres d'Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr. 100: Un\r\nautographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp. 135-83);\r\n\"Note concernant la collation d'un deuxieme manuscrit grec de la Physique\r\npar Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Jozef Brams and Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem (pp.\r\n185-92); \"La 'Recensio Matritensis' de la Physique\" by Jozef Brams (pp. 193-220);\r\n\"La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (Analisi del\r\nlibro I)\" by Pietro Rossi (pp. 221-45); \"L'attribution de la Translatio nova du De\r\ngenerations et corruptione a Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Joanna Judycka (pp. 247-51);\r\n\"Iudicialia ad Syrum: Une traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke du Quadripartitum\r\nde Cl. Ptol\u00a3mee\" by Luc Anthonis (pp. 253-55); \"Methode de traduction et\r\nproblemes de chronologie\" by Fernand Bossier (pp. 257-94); \"L'usage des mots\r\nhybrides greco-latins par Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Louis Jacques Bataillon (pp.\r\n295-99); and \"Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke\" by Willy Vanhamel\r\n(pp. 301-83).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kM52uB2YgiCytgt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":326,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Pietro d\u2019Abano e l\u2019utilizzazione della traduzione di Guglielmo di Moerbeke del Commento di Simplicio al II libro del De Caelo di Aristotele"]}
Title | Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome |
Pages | 110-129 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KXHna6DA0dhoqno |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"647","_score":null,"_source":{"id":647,"authors_free":[{"id":926,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"David N.","free_last_name":"Sedley","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":927,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":928,"entry_id":647,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall be considering the emerge, or rather re-emerge, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KXHna6DA0dhoqno","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":647,"section_of":283,"pages":"110-129","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plato's Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition"]}
Title | Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance |
Pages | 195-212 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Guldentops, Guy |
Editor(s) | Steel, Carlos , Leinkauf, Thomas |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius’ use of the Ti maeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference between his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I’ll try to detail some differences between Alexander’s and Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I’ll focus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world soul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas sages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius’ general attitude toward Alexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the theme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/650gVOAyvHZdk8u |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"526","_score":null,"_source":{"id":526,"authors_free":[{"id":736,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":151,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Guldentops, Guy","free_first_name":"Guy","free_last_name":"Guldentops","norm_person":{"id":151,"first_name":"Guy","last_name":"Guldentops","full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031934898","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":737,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":738,"entry_id":526,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander","main_title":{"title":"Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall try to shed some light on Simplicius\u2019 use of the Ti\u00ad\r\nmaeus in his commentary on De Caelo, and particularly on the difference \r\nbetween his own interpretation and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias. [...] In what follows, I\u2019ll try to detail some differences between Alexander\u2019s \r\nand Simplicius' uses and interpretations o f the Timaeus-, in particular, I\u2019ll \r\nfocus on their arguments concerning the generation of the world, the world \r\nsoul, and the immobility of the earth. Before looking at some selected pas\u00ad\r\nsages, however, it is necessary to outline Simplicius\u2019 general attitude toward \r\nAlexander of Aphrodisias and to sketch their overall interpretations of the \r\ntheme of De Caelo. [Introduction, pp. 196 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/650gVOAyvHZdk8u","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":151,"full_name":"Guldentops, Guy","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":526,"section_of":321,"pages":"195-212","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plato's Timaeus in Simplicius' In De Caelo. A confrontation with Alexander"]}
Title | Platonism in late antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 1-27 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. ‘Neoplatonist’ and ‘Neoplatonic’ first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato. Given our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another. Before going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two. First, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions—Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work—was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar’s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie’s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek: "With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek..." That was in 1962. What I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one’s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products. [introduction p. 1-2] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1126","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1126,"authors_free":[{"id":1701,"entry_id":1126,"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}},{"id":2440,"entry_id":1126,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Platonism in late antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Platonism in late antiquity"},"abstract":"The Platonism of late antiquity is, of course, what we now call Neoplatonism. That term is a modern one. \u2018Neoplatonist\u2019 and \u2018Neoplatonic\u2019 first appeared in English and French in the 1830s. All the philosophers whose work comes under this heading thought of themselves simply as Platonists, and the doctrine they were expounding as the Platonic philosophy. For Plotinus, the man normally thought of as the founder of this type of philosophy, all that he might have to say had been said before, though it might not have been set out explicitly, and could be found in the text of Plato (cf. V 1.8.10-14). For Proclus in the 5th century, after two hundred years of this kind of thinking, the same view of what he was doing still stood, as it did for Simplicius and Damascius into the 6th. Thus, Proclus, in the preface to his Platonic Theology, could write of his whole enterprise, and that of his Neoplatonic predecessors, as the understanding and exposition of the truths in Plato.\r\n\r\nGiven our modern views of Plato and Aristotle, as working philosophers whose views developed and whose answers to questions were not always the same, it is important to realize that their ancient interpreters looked at them as creators of fixed systems: though they might recognize that they did not always say the same things about the same questions, they saw such apparent inconsistencies as problems about the relation of disparate statements to an assumed single doctrine rather than about how one different doctrine might relate to another.\r\n\r\nBefore going on, I should perhaps offer some explanations and an apology. The apology is to those who know a great deal, or even a little, about Neoplatonism to whom some of what I shall say is basic common knowledge. The explanations are two.\r\n\r\nFirst, that I am taking late antiquity to start in the 3rd century A.D., following an old Cambridge custom of taking ancient Greek philosophy to have ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius. The second is to say what I am going to do here. It relates to the first. When this view of the limits of classical antiquity still held, the study of Neoplatonism was regarded as rather disreputable, in the English-speaking world at least, and the few apparent exceptions\u2014Elements of Theology, still one of the great achievements of Neoplatonic scholarship, and the first modern commentary on a Neoplatonic work\u2014was seen not so much as evidence that there was here a rich field for new scholarly endeavor as an indication of that scholar\u2019s eccentricity. The common attitude found its expression in the preface to the first volume of W.K.C. Guthrie\u2019s History of Greek Philosophy, where he relegated Neoplatonism to the realms of the unphilosophical and the un-Greek:\r\n\r\n\"With Plotinus and his followers, as well as with their Christian contemporaries, there does seem to enter a new religious spirit which is not fundamentally Greek...\"\r\n\r\nThat was in 1962.\r\n\r\nWhat I want to do is to look at some of the characteristics of Neoplatonism and to see how the picture of this philosophy, or rather group of philosophies, has changed during the last three decades. I think most would now agree it is basically Greek. As to the importance of the religious and soteriological elements in it, which for many of its adherents was rather small in any case, that is arguable, and its significance depends on the extent to which one regards other forms of ancient philosophy as enquiries into how one should live the best life either in relation to one\u2019s own society or to the gods which that society recognized. What is important is that most of the Neoplatonic writings we have are clearly philosophical rather than religious or otherwise concerned with the supernatural. I shall therefore take it for granted that we are talking about philosophy, and not any of the other things with which Neoplatonism has sometimes been associated, and which may undoubtedly be found in some of its products.\r\n[introduction p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A5Y90b8NYMkY9Vs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1126,"section_of":214,"pages":"1-27","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Platonism in late antiquity"]}
Title | Plotinus in later Platonism |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong |
Pages | 212-222 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Markus, R. A. |
Translator(s) |
We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus’ views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought. However, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"873","_score":null,"_source":{"id":873,"authors_free":[{"id":1282,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1283,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":403,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Markus, R. A.","free_first_name":"R. A.","free_last_name":"Markus","norm_person":{"id":403,"first_name":"R. A.","last_name":"Markus","full_name":"Markus, R. A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121838862","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2229,"entry_id":873,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Plotinus in later Platonism","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus in later Platonism"},"abstract":"We have seen, then, that in some areas later Neoplatonists introduced Plotinus\u2019 views to corroborate their own. This was equally true of his opinions as a Platonist and, as they understood him, as an interpreter of Aristotle. These agreements are most often found in relatively uncontroversial areas of their thought.\r\n\r\nHowever, at the extremes of the metaphysical world and in those other areas where difficulties were likely to arise, we do find substantial differences. We must, however, be cautious about interpreting these differences in terms of chronological changes. The later Neoplatonists continued to disagree among themselves, and the process we have examined was not one of linear development away from Plotinus. [conclusion p. 220]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ydcrCuFuFOAFW6r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":403,"full_name":"Markus, R. A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":873,"section_of":131,"pages":"212-222","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":131,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and early Christian thought: Essays in honour of A.H. Armstrong","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Markus1981a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"The studies collected in this book are all concerned with aspects of the Platonic tradition, either in its own internal development in the Hellenistic age and the period of the Roman Empire, or with the influence of Platonism, in one or other of its forms, on other spiritual traditions, especially that of Christianity. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PcJka3NQUzhA8jZ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":131,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Variorum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus in later Platonism"]}
Title | Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories’ |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie |
Pages | 955-974 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Strange, Steven, K. |
Editor(s) | Haase, Wolfgang |
Translator(s) |
The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus’ treatises, On the Genera of Being (Περὶ τῶν γενῶν τοῦ ὄντος, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle’s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1–24), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories. At the same time, Plotinus’ student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories. This impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1–12) and Simplicius (2.3–8) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus’ objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry’s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus’ and Simplicius’ commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry’s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus’ lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this. Moreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry’s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle. My purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus’ discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus’ and Porphyry’s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry’s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus’ arguments. The consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role. My discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd. Then I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism. In the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus’ position and Porphyry’s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1151","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1151,"authors_free":[{"id":1726,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":324,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Strange, Steven, K.","free_first_name":"Steven, K.","free_last_name":"Strange","norm_person":{"id":324,"first_name":"Steven K.","last_name":"Strange","full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111772655X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2412,"entry_id":1151,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":325,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","free_first_name":"Wolfgang","free_last_name":"Haase","norm_person":{"id":325,"first_name":"Wolfgang","last_name":"Haase","full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117757527","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"},"abstract":"The claim is often made that the most extensive of Plotinus\u2019 treatises, On the Genera of Being (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Enn. VI.1-3), contains a polemical attack on Aristotle\u2019s theory of categories. This claim would seem to be well-grounded, given that in the first part of the work (VI.1.1\u201324), Plotinus proceeds through the list of categories given by Aristotle and systematically raises a series of powerful objections to claims Aristotle makes about them in the text of the Categories.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Plotinus\u2019 student Porphyry is rightly given credit for establishing Aristotle's Categories, along with the rest of the Aristotelian logical treatises usually referred to as the Organon, as the fundamental texts for logical doctrines in the Neoplatonic scholastic tradition, and through this tradition later for medieval philosophy, by means of his Isagoge or introduction to the Categories and his commentaries on that work. Taken together, these two propositions tend to give the impression that there was deep and substantive disagreement between master and pupil about the value of the theory found in the Categories.\r\n\r\nThis impression is reinforced by the implication in the introduction to the extant commentaries on the Categories of Dexippus (5.1\u201312) and Simplicius (2.3\u20138) that Porphyry, in the massive commentary on the Categories which he dedicated to Gedalius, probably one of his students, replied in detail to Plotinus\u2019 objections against the Categories. Indeed, in Porphyry\u2019s extant catechism-commentary and throughout Dexippus\u2019 and Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, both of which seem to be following closely either Porphyry\u2019s lost To Gedalius or Iamblichus\u2019 lost commentary, itself based on To Gedalius, we can see Porphyry doing precisely this.\r\n\r\nMoreover, it is clear from the text of Simplicius that many of the objections Plotinus raises against the Categories in On the Genera of Being he got from a work or works of Lucius and Nicostratus, who were certainly hostile to Aristotle. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this simple way of putting the matter is more than a little misleading: it both misrepresents the nature and originality of Porphyry\u2019s contribution to the history of logic and metaphysics and distorts our view of the fundamental Neoplatonic problem of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nMy purpose in the following essay will be to try to sharpen the statement of the historical situation by examining some of the connections between Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories and Plotinus\u2019 discussion of the problem of the nature of the categories, especially the category of substance, in On the Genera of Being. I will be suggesting that Plotinus\u2019 and Porphyry\u2019s attitudes toward the Categories are much closer to one another than has previously been supposed, and that in particular Porphyry\u2019s position on the nature of categories has been deeply influenced by Plotinus\u2019 arguments.\r\n\r\nThe consequence of this is that Plotinus ought to be accorded a much more prominent place than he standardly has been in the history of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle, in which the problem of the proper interpretation of the Categories plays an important role.\r\n\r\nMy discussion will fall into four parts. In the next section, I will look at some of the more important features of Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of the Categories that enabled him to downplay the evidently anti-Platonic metaphysical elements that the work contains and to turn it into a basic textbook of logic for his revived school-Platonism. Here, I will be relying heavily upon an important and seminal paper by A. C. Lloyd.\r\n\r\nThen I will turn to the main arguments that Plotinus employs against what was in his day the standard interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and their implications for his view of the nature of that work and its relation to Platonism.\r\n\r\nIn the final section of the paper, we will be able to see some important connections between Plotinus\u2019 position and Porphyry\u2019s which throw light on the metaphysical issues connected with the important Neoplatonic thesis of the fundamental harmony of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. [introduction p. 955-957]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AVNTI4tBsipTJL7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":324,"full_name":"Strange, Steven K.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":325,"full_name":"Haase, Wolfgang","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1151,"section_of":335,"pages":"955-974","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":335,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aufstieg und Niedergang der r\u00f6mischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. 2. Teilband: Philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Haase1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R\u00d6MISCHEN WELT (ANRW) ist ein internationales Gemeinschaftswerk historischer Wissenschaften. Seine Aufgabe besteht darin, alle wichtigen Aspekte der antiken r\u00f6mischen Welt sowie ihres Fortwirkens und Nachlebens in Mittelalter und Neuzeit nach dem gegenw\u00e4rtigen Stand der Forschung in Einzelbeitr\u00e4gen zu behandeln. Das Werk ist in 3 Teile gegliedert:\r\nI. Von den Anf\u00e4ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik\r\nII. Principat\r\nIII. Sp\u00e4tantike\r\nJeder der drei Teile umfa\u00dft sechs systematische Rubriken, zwischen denen es vielfache \u00dcberschneidungen gibt: 1. Politische Geschichte, 2. Recht, 3. Religion, 4. Sprache und Literatur, 5. Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 6. K\u00fcnste.\r\n\r\nANRW ist ein handbuchartiges \u00dcbersichtswerk zu den r\u00f6mischen Studien im weitesten Sinne, mit Einschlu\u00df der Rezeptions- und Wirkungsgeschichte bis in die Gegenwart. Bei den Beitr\u00e4gen handelt es sich entweder um zusammenfassende Darstellungen mit Bibliographie oder um Problem- und Forschungsberichte bzw. thematisch breit angelegte exemplarische Untersuchungen. Die Artikel erscheinen in deutscher, englischer, franz\u00f6sischer oder italienischer Sprache.\r\n\r\nZum Mitarbeiterstab geh\u00f6ren rund 1000 Gelehrte aus 35 L\u00e4ndern. Der Vielfalt der Themen entsprechend geh\u00f6ren die Autoren haupts\u00e4chlich folgenden Fachrichtungen an: Alte, Mittelalterliche und Neue Geschichte; Byzantinistik, Slavistik; Klassische, Mittellateinische, Romanische und Orientalische Philologie; Klassische, Orientalische und Christliche Arch\u00e4ologie und Kunstgeschichte; Rechtswissenschaft; Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, besonders Kirchengeschichte und Patristik.\r\n\r\nIn Vorbereitung sind:\r\nTeil II, Bd. 26,4: Religion - Vorkonstantinisches Christentum: Neues Testament - Sachthemen, Fortsetzung\r\nTeil II, Bd. 37,4: Wissenschaften: Medizin und Biologie, Fortsetzung. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vkva8h1vt1Po53c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":335,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the \u2018Categories\u2019"]}
Title | Pluralism after Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought |
Pages | 127-179 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Curd, Patricia |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the influence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence appears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of the fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and in the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies take. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and then turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"910","_score":null,"_source":{"id":910,"authors_free":[{"id":1340,"entry_id":910,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pluralism after Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"Pluralism after Parmenides"},"abstract":"In this chapter I turn from Parmenides to two of his successors, examining the Pluralist theories of Anaxagoras and Empedocles, in order to explore the \r\ninfluence of Parmenides on these later thinkers. I argue that this influence \r\nappears in two fundamental aspects of their theories: in their conceptions of \r\nthe fundamental entities that are the genuine beings of their cosmologies, and \r\nin the form (mixture and Separation of the basic entities) these cosmologies \r\ntake. I begin with a short discussion of the question of Pluralism itself and \r\nthen turn first to Anaxagoras and then to Empedocles. [Introduction, pp. 127 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rPBPoCGoPofFCOl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":910,"section_of":1284,"pages":"127-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1284,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Legacy of Parmenides. Eleatic Monism and Later Presocratic Thought ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides of Elea was the most important and influential philosopher before Plato. Patricia Curd here reinterprets Parmenides' views and offers a new account of his relation to his predecessors and successors. On the traditional interpretation, Parmenides argues that generation, destruction, and change are unreal and that only one thing exists. He therefore rejected as impossible the scientific inquiry practiced by the earlier Presocratic philosophers. But the philosophers who came after Parmenides attempted to explain natural change and they assumed the reality of a plurality of basic entities. Thus, on the traditional interpretation, the later Presocratics either ignored or contradicted his arguments. In this book, Patricia Curd argues that Parmenides sought to reform rather than to reject scientific inquiry and offers a more coherent account of his influence on the philosophers who came after him.\r\n\r\nThe Legacy of Parmenides provides a detailed examination of Parmenides' arguments, considering his connection to earlier Greek thought and how his account of what-is could serve as a model for later philosophers. It then considers the theories of those who came after him, including the Pluralists (Anaxagoras and Empedocles), the Atomists (Leucippus and Democritus), the later Eleatics (Zeno and Melissus), and the later Presocratics Philolaus of Croton and Diogenes of Apollonia. The book closes with a discussion of the importance of Parmenides' views for the development of Plato's Theory of Forms. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ySFJ6JlG0mDNxxJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1284,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Princeton University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Pluralism after Parmenides"]}
Title | Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch |
Pages | 136-153 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna |
Editor(s) | Xenophontos, Sophia , Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini |
Translator(s) |
The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch’s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise "On the Unity of the Academy" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction / Conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1421","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1421,"authors_free":[{"id":2230,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":405,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","free_first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","free_last_name":"Simonetti","norm_person":{"id":405,"first_name":"Elsa Giovanna","last_name":"Simonetti","full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144280753","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2434,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":480,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","free_first_name":"Sophia","free_last_name":"Xenophontos","norm_person":{"id":480,"first_name":"Sophia","last_name":"Xenophontos","full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1112475400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2435,"entry_id":1421,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":481,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","free_first_name":"Aikaterini","free_last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","norm_person":{"id":481,"first_name":"Aikaterini","last_name":"Oikonomopoulou","full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036691888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"},"abstract":"The present chapter, by focusing on a selection of passages from Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius, aims to explore Plutarch's influence within the Neoplatonists' reconsideration of Platonic philosophy, its aims, roots, and historical development. As we will see, Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius integrate Plutarch\u2019s heritage into their own agendas by adapting it to their own specific historical context, which ranges from the third to the sixth century AD, a time when the fundamental reassessment of Platonism also responds to the urgency of supplying new ways to happiness and salvation that could compete with those provided by Christianity. Recalling Simplicius' invitation to taking advantage of different situations, we can conclude that all the Neoplatonists here considered judiciously took advantage of Plutarch's works to justify their own philosophical reflection and to redefine their relationship with the Platonic tradition. Despite discarding some of Plutarch's metaphysical theories, they exploited his legacy according to their own ideological and historical context. Exploring the reception of Plutarch of Chaeronea in Porphyry, Proclus, and Simplicius has helped us discern some continuous strands of thought within Imperial Platonism, notwithstanding the considerable originality and theoretical innovations that have inevitably emerged in a time span of four centuries. In this regard, it might be useful to recall that Plutarch himself was an advocate of the unity of Platonism under the aegis of its illustrious founder, as proven by the existence of his treatise \"On the Unity of the Academy\" from Plato (no. 63 of the Lamprias catalogue), which is unfortunately lost. The Neoplatonists also share Plutarch's fundamental conviction that Plato's works enclose a coherent system of doctrines that await to be recovered and, motivated by this, engage in an impressive activity of synthesis, exegesis, and teaching of his dialogues, perceived as an extraordinary source of knowledge. In their constant and passionate re-reading of the past and of their own tradition, Plutarch emerges as an animate figure and a dynamic interlocutor. He is not simply a motionless icon. Rather, he is kept in life through the Platonists' strenuous effort of re-thinking and re-discovering their own history and heritage. [Introduction \/ Conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XM6bPhXl3bvnvIT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":405,"full_name":"Simonetti, Elsa Giovanna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":480,"full_name":"Xenophontos, Sophia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":481,"full_name":"Oikonomopoulou, Aikaterini","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1421,"section_of":1422,"pages":"136-153","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1422,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plutarch","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Greek biographer and philosopher Plutarch of Chaeronea (c. 45-125 AD) makes a fascinating case-study for reception studies not least because of his uniquely extensive and diverse afterlife. Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plutarch offers the first comprehensive analysis of Plutarch\u2019s rich reception history from the Roman Imperial period through Late Antiquity and Byzantium to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and the modern era. The thirty-seven chapters that make up this volume, written by a remarkable line-up of experts, explore the appreciation, contestation and creative appropriation of Plutarch himself, his thought and work in the history of literature across various cultures and intellectual traditions in Europe, America, North Africa, and the Middle East. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E0eFuPTTIEjNhZC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1422,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's Companions to Classical Reception","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Plutarch and the Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Proklos, Simplikios"]}
Title | Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte |
Pages | 227-239 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Moraux, Paul |
Editor(s) | Motte, André , Rutten, Christian |
Translator(s) |
Comme nous l’avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilisé systématiquement la synopsis des livres V à VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laissé des traces ailleurs dans la littérature tardive ? Nous n’en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l’attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cicéron. Il s’agit d’une discussion de la thèse platonicienne selon laquelle l’âme est immortelle parce qu’elle est automotrice. Macrobe note qu’Aristote a contesté la légitimité de cette thèse et affirmé que l’âme ne peut se mouvoir elle-même et ne peut même subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d’abord qu’il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d’immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait à prouver que tout ce qui est mû l’est par quelque chose d’autre. Puis il établissait l’existence d’un premier moteur non mû. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l’âme est principe de mouvement, elle doit être immobile. Pour illustrer ces diverses thèses d’Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments présentés par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s’agit pas là de citations ou d’extraits littéraux, mais bien de résumés où la substance des développements d’Aristote est réduite à l’essentiel, donc d’une sorte d’epidromê ou de synopsis des passages utilisés. Or, nous savons que de tous les néoplatoniciens, Porphyre est l’un de ceux que Macrobe, qui dépend d’ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fréquemment. Dans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme très probable l’hypothèse selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunté au traité de Porphyre Peri Psychês pros Boêthon les développements qu’il consacre au passage du Phèdre, traduit par Cicéron, sur l’automotricité et l’immortalité de l’âme. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d’Aristote ont été tirées de la même source, ou si Macrobe les a trouvées ailleurs, chez un péripatéticien, par exemple. Si l’on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait très bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie commenté et en partie résumé la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l’âme, il s’était attaché non seulement à présenter les vues de Platon, mais aussi à les défendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement étendu sur les difficultés que les théories aristotéliciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l’automotricité de l’âme. À cet effet, Porphyre avait exploité surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait résumé sous la forme d’une synopsis les livres V à VIII, tout nous invite à croire qu’il avait largement utilisé cette synopsis en rédigeant son propre Peri Psychês. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypothèse, tout alléchante qu’elle est, ne dépasse pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du résumé porphyrien du huitième livre de la Physique et, dès lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d’Aristote présentées par Macrobe remontent bien, en dernière analyse, à la synopsis qui a fait l’objet de la présente étude. [conclusion p. 237-239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HITY0gikmySrLA8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"494","_score":null,"_source":{"id":494,"authors_free":[{"id":681,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":137,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Moraux, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Moraux","norm_person":{"id":137,"first_name":"Paul ","last_name":"Moraux","full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117755591","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2115,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":468,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Motte, Andre\u0301","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Motte","norm_person":{"id":468,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Motte","full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124510663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2409,"entry_id":494,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":469,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rutten, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Rutten","norm_person":{"id":469,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Rutten","full_name":"Rutten, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119515512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"},"abstract":"Comme nous l\u2019avons vu, il ne semble pas que Simplicius ait utilis\u00e9 syst\u00e9matiquement la synopsis des livres V \u00e0 VIII. Celle-ci a-t-elle laiss\u00e9 des traces ailleurs dans la litt\u00e9rature tardive ? Nous n\u2019en avons aucune preuve formelle. Je voudrais pourtant attirer l\u2019attention sur un passage du commentaire de Macrobe au Somnium Scipionis de Cic\u00e9ron. Il s\u2019agit d\u2019une discussion de la th\u00e8se platonicienne selon laquelle l\u2019\u00e2me est immortelle parce qu\u2019elle est automotrice.\r\n\r\nMacrobe note qu\u2019Aristote a contest\u00e9 la l\u00e9gitimit\u00e9 de cette th\u00e8se et affirm\u00e9 que l\u2019\u00e2me ne peut se mouvoir elle-m\u00eame et ne peut m\u00eame subir aucun mouvement. Aristote montrait d\u2019abord qu\u2019il y a, dans la nature, quelque chose d\u2019immobile. Ensuite, il cherchait \u00e0 prouver que tout ce qui est m\u00fb l\u2019est par quelque chose d\u2019autre. Puis il \u00e9tablissait l\u2019existence d\u2019un premier moteur non m\u00fb. Contre Platon, il montrait alors que tout principe de mouvement est immobile, et que donc, si l\u2019\u00e2me est principe de mouvement, elle doit \u00eatre immobile.\r\n\r\nPour illustrer ces diverses th\u00e8ses d\u2019Aristote, Macrobe reproduit, sous une forme assez squelettique, des arguments pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s par Aristote au livre VIII de la Physique. Il ne s\u2019agit pas l\u00e0 de citations ou d\u2019extraits litt\u00e9raux, mais bien de r\u00e9sum\u00e9s o\u00f9 la substance des d\u00e9veloppements d\u2019Aristote est r\u00e9duite \u00e0 l\u2019essentiel, donc d\u2019une sorte d\u2019epidrom\u00ea ou de synopsis des passages utilis\u00e9s. Or, nous savons que de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens, Porphyre est l\u2019un de ceux que Macrobe, qui d\u00e9pend d\u2019ordinaire de sources plus anciennes, utilise le plus volontiers et le plus fr\u00e9quemment.\r\n\r\nDans son ensemble, la critique moderne admet comme tr\u00e8s probable l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle Macrobe aurait emprunt\u00e9 au trait\u00e9 de Porphyre Peri Psych\u00eas pros Bo\u00eathon les d\u00e9veloppements qu\u2019il consacre au passage du Ph\u00e8dre, traduit par Cic\u00e9ron, sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 et l\u2019immortalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me. La question se pose donc de savoir si les objections d\u2019Aristote ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9es de la m\u00eame source, ou si Macrobe les a trouv\u00e9es ailleurs, chez un p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien, par exemple.\r\n\r\nSi l\u2019on tient compte du fait que Porphyre connaissait tr\u00e8s bien Aristote, dont il avait en partie comment\u00e9 et en partie r\u00e9sum\u00e9 la Physique, on pourra, ce me semble, fort bien imaginer que, dans son ouvrage sur l\u2019\u00e2me, il s\u2019\u00e9tait attach\u00e9 non seulement \u00e0 pr\u00e9senter les vues de Platon, mais aussi \u00e0 les d\u00e9fendre contre les objections auxquelles elles pouvaient se heurter. Il est donc tout naturel que Porphyre se soit assez longuement \u00e9tendu sur les difficult\u00e9s que les th\u00e9ories aristot\u00e9liciennes du mouvement et du premier moteur suscitaient contre les arguments de Platon sur l\u2019automotricit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e2me.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 cet effet, Porphyre avait exploit\u00e9 surtout le dernier livre de la Physique. Et comme il avait r\u00e9sum\u00e9 sous la forme d\u2019une synopsis les livres V \u00e0 VIII, tout nous invite \u00e0 croire qu\u2019il avait largement utilis\u00e9 cette synopsis en r\u00e9digeant son propre Peri Psych\u00eas. Mais pour le dire en toute franchise, cette hypoth\u00e8se, tout all\u00e9chante qu\u2019elle est, ne d\u00e9passe pas la vraisemblance. Nous ne disposons pas de fragments certains du r\u00e9sum\u00e9 porphyrien du huiti\u00e8me livre de la Physique et, d\u00e8s lors, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de prouver, par voie de comparaison, que les objections d\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es par Macrobe remontent bien, en derni\u00e8re analyse, \u00e0 la synopsis qui a fait l\u2019objet de la pr\u00e9sente \u00e9tude. [conclusion p. 237-239]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HITY0gikmySrLA8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":137,"full_name":"Moraux, Paul ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":468,"full_name":"Motte, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":469,"full_name":"Rutten, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":494,"section_of":297,"pages":"227-239","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":297,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristotelica: M\u00e9langes offerts \u00e0 Marcel de Corte","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motte1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vbTKdtbzJ5KxKIX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":297,"pubplace":"Bruxelles \u2013 Lie\u0300ge","publisher":"E\u0301ditions Ousia \u2013 Presses universitaires","series":"Cahiers de philosophie ancienne","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyre, Commentateur de la Physique d'Aristote"]}
Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 97-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}
Title | Pour une histoire de l’interprétation de Diogène |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | |
Pages | 21-36 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as "the last of the physicists," there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that "intellection" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1189","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1189,"authors_free":[{"id":1761,"entry_id":1189,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne","main_title":{"title":"Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"},"abstract":"This text discusses the interpretation of Diogenes of Apollonia, a philosopher whose work is thought to date back to the 5th century BC. While Diogenes is often referred to as \"the last of the physicists,\" there were other contemporaries who could also claim that title. Despite this, Diogenes' ideas on philosophy represented a culmination of previous philosophies, particularly those of Anaxagoras and Socrates. Diogenes criticized Anaxagoras' perspective and introduced the idea that \"intellection\" is immanent in the air, constructing a new universe based on this premise. The text notes that while Socratic-Platonic critique overshadowed Diogenes' exegesis, his work remains relevant due to its internal critique of Anaxagoras' ideas. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uMTvuWxbtSS0NTk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1189,"section_of":351,"pages":"21-36","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":null},"sort":["Pour une histoire de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Diog\u00e8ne"]}
Title | Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 756–764 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | de Haas, F. A. J. |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work "Solutiones ad Chosroem," translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the "Solutiones" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1551","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1551,"authors_free":[{"id":2713,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"de Haas, F. A. J.","free_first_name":"F. A. J.","free_last_name":"de Haas","norm_person":null},{"id":2714,"entry_id":1551,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul","main_title":{"title":"Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"},"abstract":"The text explores the life of Priscian of Lydia, a little-known philosopher from the late fifth century CE, who accompanied Damascius on a journey to the Sassanian king Chosroes I. Priscian's work \"Solutiones ad Chosroem,\" translated into Latin, addresses various topics in natural history and meteorology. The text delves into questions about the nature of the human soul, the phenomenon of sleep, the connection between vision and dreams, the causes of seasons and climatic zones, the application of drugs with contrary effects, the influence of lunar phases on tides, the properties of air and fire, the diversity of species in different environments, and the purpose of venomous snakes in the world. Priscian's work exhibits a wide range of knowledge from various ancient sources, and it seemingly reinforces Platonic metaphysics through its analysis of physical phenomena. Despite being relatively obscure, the \"Solutiones\" has been known to some medieval scholars and copied in later centuries. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2VbXQkN5q9f6HeT","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1551,"section_of":964,"pages":"756\u2013764 ","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the Soul"]}
Title | Priscianus of Ludia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 695-696 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed. Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian\u2019s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle\u2019s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4\u20135).\r\n\r\nTogether with Themistius\u2019 summary version of Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, Priscian\u2019s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus\u2019 psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.\r\n\r\nPriscian\u2019s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex\u2014only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering\u2014without originality\u2014topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":["Priscianus of Ludia"]}
Title | Priscien de Lydie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius à Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina à Rutilius Rufus |
Pages | 1514-1521 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Au total, l’autocitation du commentateur du De anima à sa propre Épitomé de Théophraste peut facilement être mise en rapport, grâce à des arguments philologiques solides, avec la Métaphrase conservée de Priscien, ce qui est également confirmé par l’utilisation de cet ouvrage en d’autres passages du commentaire. Les preuves avancées par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette thèse n’ont jamais été contredites de façon concluante, tandis que les objections faites à leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une réponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer à l’attribution du commentaire à Priscien que l’hypothèse fragile d’une Épitomé perdue de Théophraste ; au vu des particularités doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conservés, cette hypothèse est en elle-même problématique. Dans la mesure où il n’existe aucune preuve positive de l’existence d’un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommandé, dès lors qu’avec la majorité des chercheurs on retire la paternité du commentaire à Simplicius, de considérer Priscien comme son auteur. L’attribution à Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l’appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, grâce à ses très solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fondée que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l’attribution à Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parménide). L’auteur de la présente notice est, pour sa part, persuadé de la justesse de cette attribution. [conclusion p. 1521] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1084","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1084,"authors_free":[{"id":1639,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1640,"entry_id":1084,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscien de Lydie","main_title":{"title":"Priscien de Lydie"},"abstract":"Au total, l\u2019autocitation du commentateur du De anima \u00e0 sa propre \u00c9pitom\u00e9 de Th\u00e9ophraste peut facilement \u00eatre mise en rapport, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des arguments philologiques solides, avec la M\u00e9taphrase conserv\u00e9e de Priscien, ce qui est \u00e9galement confirm\u00e9 par l\u2019utilisation de cet ouvrage en d\u2019autres passages du commentaire.\r\n\r\nLes preuves avanc\u00e9es par Steel et Boissier en faveur de cette th\u00e8se n\u2019ont jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 contredites de fa\u00e7on concluante, tandis que les objections faites \u00e0 leur position peuvent en revanche recevoir une r\u00e9ponse. Finalement, on ne peut opposer \u00e0 l\u2019attribution du commentaire \u00e0 Priscien que l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se fragile d\u2019une \u00c9pitom\u00e9 perdue de Th\u00e9ophraste ; au vu des particularit\u00e9s doctrinales et linguistiques communes aux deux textes conserv\u00e9s, cette hypoth\u00e8se est en elle-m\u00eame probl\u00e9matique.\r\n\r\nDans la mesure o\u00f9 il n\u2019existe aucune preuve positive de l\u2019existence d\u2019un auteur distinct de Priscien et de Simplicius, il est recommand\u00e9, d\u00e8s lors qu\u2019avec la majorit\u00e9 des chercheurs on retire la paternit\u00e9 du commentaire \u00e0 Simplicius, de consid\u00e9rer Priscien comme son auteur.\r\n\r\nL\u2019attribution \u00e0 Priscien du Commentaire sur le De anima, qui est historiquement parfaitement plausible du fait de l\u2019appartenance de ce philosophe au cercle de Damascius, est en tout cas, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 ses tr\u00e8s solides bases philologiques, beaucoup mieux fond\u00e9e que celle de nombreux textes antiques (par exemple l\u2019attribution \u00e0 Porphyre de Ad Gaurum ou du Commentaire anonyme de Turin sur le Parm\u00e9nide).\r\n\r\nL\u2019auteur de la pr\u00e9sente notice est, pour sa part, persuad\u00e9 de la justesse de cette attribution.\r\n[conclusion p. 1521]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/e7qG8dZmAxFJDkM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1084,"section_of":1378,"pages":"1514-1521","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1378,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol V: de Paccius \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus - Vb: de Plotina \u00e0 Rutilius Rufus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x0jZuzeLMaSkQwF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1378,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Priscien de Lydie"]}
Title | Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgewählt, eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von Matthias Perkams |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist |
Pages | 547-675 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simplicius , Perkams, Matthias |
Editor(s) | Perkams, Matthias , Busche, Hubertus |
Translator(s) | Perkams, Matthias(Perkams, Matthias) , |
Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren: Eine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, nämlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und Überleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen. Die zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles’ Lehre vom aktiven Geist. Diese äußerst knappe Charakterisierung der Stärken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift lässt seine Schwächen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung. Priskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, „die Übereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben“; anders gesagt, erklärt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst für die Wahrheit hält. Das wichtigste Kriterium für diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich. Konsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen häufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten könnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erklärt. Trotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenmächtig sind, darf man nicht übersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalität im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken. Insofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel für einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, für den Aristoteles nicht nur „Platons bester Ausleger“ ist, sondern auch eine „weitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail“ liefert, „was dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erklärte“. Auf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was für ihn Anlass zu einer ausführlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1443,"authors_free":[{"id":2305,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2306,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2307,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2308,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":442,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Busche, Hubertus","free_first_name":"Hubertus","free_last_name":"Busche","norm_person":{"id":442,"first_name":"Hubertus","last_name":"Busche","full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118125311","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2309,"entry_id":1443,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":283,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Perkams, Matthias","free_first_name":"Matthias","free_last_name":"Perkams","norm_person":{"id":283,"first_name":"Matthias","last_name":"Perkams","full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123439760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams","main_title":{"title":"Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"},"abstract":"Der De-anima-Kommentar, der hier dem Lyder Priskian zugeschrieben wird, ist eine der philosophisch anspruchsvollsten und elaboriertesten Darstellungen des neuplatonischen Menschenbildes. Originell und von systematischem Interesse sind besonders zwei Lehren:\r\n\r\nEine ist eine Reformulierung der aristotelischen Entelechie-Lehre mithilfe der Unterscheidung zweier Formen von Entelechie, n\u00e4mlich einerseits der reinen Formung des lebendigen Leibes und andererseits des Gebrauchs dieses Leibes zum Leben und \u00dcberleben durch das leiblich verfasste Lebewesen.\r\n\r\nDie zweite, um die es im Folgenden in erster Linie geht, ist eine Reformulierung der neuplatonischen Geistlehre unter Berufung auf Aristoteles\u2019 Lehre vom aktiven Geist.\r\n\r\nDiese \u00e4u\u00dferst knappe Charakterisierung der St\u00e4rken des Kommentars als systematischer Schrift l\u00e4sst seine Schw\u00e4chen erahnen, die von Aristoteles-Auslegern seit langem beklagt werden: eine gewisse Entstellung der Lehre des Aristoteles bzw. ein Abweichen und Abschweifen von seiner Darstellung.\r\n\r\nPriskian beabsichtigt in seinem Kommentar, \u201edie \u00dcbereinstimmung des Philosophen [...] mit der Wahrheit [...] zu beschreiben\u201c; anders gesagt, erkl\u00e4rt der Kommentator, was die jeweilige Aristoteles-Stelle mit dem zu tun hat, was er selbst f\u00fcr die Wahrheit h\u00e4lt. Das wichtigste Kriterium f\u00fcr diese Wahrheit ist aber nicht Aristoteles, sondern der neuplatonische Philosoph Jamblich.\r\n\r\nKonsequenterweise sehen Priskians Kommentierungen h\u00e4ufig so aus, dass er zuerst sagt, was die fragliche Stelle im Rahmen seiner eigenen Systematik bedeuten k\u00f6nnte, bevor er bestimmte aristotelische Formulierungen in diesem Sinne erkl\u00e4rt.\r\n\r\nTrotz dieser Auslegungsarten, die selbst im harmoniefreudigen Kontext neuplatonischer Kommentare sehr eigenm\u00e4chtig sind, darf man nicht \u00fcbersehen, dass die Lehren, die Priskians Originalit\u00e4t im neuplatonischen Kontext ausmachen, tief von aristotelischer Terminologie durchdrungen und von dem Versuch geleitet sind, die Gedanken des Stagiriten vor dem Hintergrund der Fragen seiner eigenen Zeit nachzudenken.\r\n\r\nInsofern ist Priskian das deutlichste Beispiel f\u00fcr einen aristotelisierenden Neuplatonismus, f\u00fcr den Aristoteles nicht nur \u201ePlatons bester Ausleger\u201c ist, sondern auch eine \u201eweitere Ausarbeitung dessen im Detail\u201c liefert, \u201ewas dieser allgemeiner und zusammenfassender erkl\u00e4rte\u201c.\r\n\r\nAuf der Grundlage seiner Auseinandersetzung mit Aristoteles kommt Priskian sogar zu anderen Ergebnissen als sein Vorbild Jamblich, was f\u00fcr ihn Anlass zu einer ausf\u00fchrlichen Rechtfertigung ist. [introduction p. 547-548]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":442,"full_name":"Busche, Hubertus","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":283,"full_name":"Perkams, Matthias","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1443,"section_of":246,"pages":"547-675","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":246,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehre vom Geist","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Busche2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Dieser Band vereinigt erstmals alle erhaltenen antiken Interpretationen zu der von Aristoteles in De anima III, v.a. in Kap. 4-5, skizzierten Lehre vom Geist (\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2) im Original und in deutscher Sprache. Diese Texte bieten nicht nur Interpretationen eines der meistkommentierten Lehrst\u00fccke der ganzen Philosophiegeschichte; vielmehr enthalten sie zum Teil auch eigenst\u00e4ndige philosophische Auseinandersetzungen \u00fcber den wirkenden und leidenden, den menschlichen und den g\u00f6ttlichen Geist sowie \u00fcber die M\u00f6glichkeiten geistigen Erfassens \u00fcberhaupt.\r\n\r\nIm Einzelnen enth\u00e4lt der Band die Deutungen von Theophrast (4. Jh. v. Chr.), Alexander von Aphrodisias (De anima und De intellectu [umstritten]; um 200), Themistios (4. Jh.), Johannes Philoponos, Priskian (Theophrast-Metaphrase), Pseudo-Simplikios, d.h. Priskian aus Lydien (De-anima-Kommentar; alle nach 500) und Pseudo-Philoponos, d.h. Stephanos von Alexandria (um 550). Da sich diese Kommentatoren nicht selten auf fr\u00fchere Ausleger beziehen, wurde die Zusammenstellung um weitere wichtige Zeugnisse erg\u00e4nzt, z. B. zur Aristoteles-Deutung des Xenokrates sowie eines Anonymus des 2. Jahrhunderts. Zwei allgemeine Einf\u00fchrungstexte der Herausgeber informieren \u00fcber die systematischen Probleme der Auslegung von De anima III 4-5 sowie \u00fcber die antike Auslegungsgeschichte dieses Textes. Spezielle Einleitungen zu den acht Interpretationen informieren \u00fcber Leben und Werk ihrer Autoren sowie \u00fcber die Besonderheiten ihrer Interpretation. Die Anmerkungen in den Anh\u00e4ngen geben weitere gedankliche, sachliche oder historische Erl\u00e4uterungen zu einzelnen Textstellen. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UlzAOg1ANbSITQ8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":246,"pubplace":"Hamburg","publisher":"Felix Meiner Verlag","series":"Philosophische Bibliothek","volume":"694","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Priskian von Lydien (\u203aSimplikios\u2039): Kommentar zu De anima III. Ausgew\u00e4hlt, eingeleitet, \u00fcbersetzt und erl\u00e4utert von Matthias Perkams"]}
Title | Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1995 |
Published in | Concepts of space in Greek thought |
Pages | 192-260 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Editor(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
Translator(s) |
In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle’s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle’s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle’s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes. In section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus. Two other problems left open by Aristotle—viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status—seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed—together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens—by both Eudemus and Theophrastus. It appears—if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us—that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master’s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle’s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle’s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle’s arguments in clearer terms. But even if Eudemus appears to have been the more ‘orthodox’ of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus’ dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies—suggested in fr. 149—may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position. For insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.¹⁴⁴ And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact. At the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus’ solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle’s (and Eudemus’) rather naïve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).¹⁴⁵ This brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus’ suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals. We need only look at Aristotle’s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues. This, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle’s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work. And the mere fact that Aristotle’s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.¹⁴⁶ At any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition—for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,¹⁴⁷ and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JNlEob1OVl4sohO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1159,"authors_free":[{"id":1735,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2347,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions","main_title":{"title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"},"abstract":"In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle\u2019s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle\u2019s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.\r\n\r\nIn section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.\r\n\r\nTwo other problems left open by Aristotle\u2014viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status\u2014seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed\u2014together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens\u2014by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt appears\u2014if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us\u2014that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master\u2019s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle\u2019s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle\u2019s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle\u2019s arguments in clearer terms.\r\n\r\nBut even if Eudemus appears to have been the more \u2018orthodox\u2019 of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus\u2019 dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies\u2014suggested in fr. 149\u2014may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.\r\n\r\nFor insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.\u00b9\u2074\u2074 And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus\u2019 solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle\u2019s (and Eudemus\u2019) rather na\u00efve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).\u00b9\u2074\u2075\r\n\r\nThis brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus\u2019 suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.\r\n\r\nWe need only look at Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.\r\n\r\nThis, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle\u2019s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.\r\n\r\nAnd the mere fact that Aristotle\u2019s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2074\u2076\r\n\r\nAt any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition\u2014for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,\u00b9\u2074\u2077 and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNlEob1OVl4sohO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1159,"section_of":232,"pages":"192-260","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"]}
Title | Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Published in | Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance |
Pages | 163-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Leinkauf, Thomas , Steel, Carlos |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato’s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus’ treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world. In this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates. Simplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus’ polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is “forced” to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato. How different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle’s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"483","_score":null,"_source":{"id":483,"authors_free":[{"id":656,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":657,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":152,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Leinkauf","norm_person":{"id":152,"first_name":"Thomas","last_name":"Leinkauf","full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122040309","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":658,"entry_id":483,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise","main_title":{"title":"Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise"},"abstract":"In this paper, we have made a reconstruction of an early treatise of Proclus in which he attempted to refute the objections Aristotle had put forward against Plato\u2019s doctrine in the Timaeus. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Proclus himself have been our sources. Proclus recycles the arguments of his earlier treatise in his great commentary on the Timaeus. Philoponus fully exploits Proclus\u2019 treatise against Proclus himself to refute his views on the eternity of the world.\r\n\r\nIn this question and in many others, Philoponus believes Plato and Aristotle are radically opposed. Proclus does not dissimulate their disagreement, but, to Philoponus' anger, he does not take distance from Aristotle's interpretation of the Timaeus in the discussion about the eternity of the world. Instead of sincerely accepting with Plato that the world is generated and temporal, he defects to the Aristotelian view and thus comes in contradiction with his earlier work, as Philoponus demonstrates.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also read the early treatise of Proclus, and he quotes large extracts from it in his commentary on the De Caelo. Simplicius, who is a great advocate of the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, is often embarrassed with Proclus\u2019 polemics. Whenever Proclus quotes a text from Aristotle to convince the philosopher that he too is \u201cforced\u201d to admit the truth of the Platonic principles, Simplicius makes of it an argument to demonstrate that Aristotle is fundamentally in agreement with Plato.\r\n\r\nHow different their ultimate goals may have been in this polemic, both ideological opponents, Philoponus and Simplicius, offer us valuable information on a lost work of Proclus, in which he attacked Aristotle with youthful zeal in defense of the Timaeus. The treatise witnesses both his admiration for the Timaeus and his irritation at Aristotle\u2019s unfair treatment. [conclusion p. 193]","btype":2,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kMYAmCjyTBGx2oh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":152,"full_name":"Leinkauf, Thomas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":483,"section_of":321,"pages":"163-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":321,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance - Plato's Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Leinkauf\/Steel2005","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2005","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2005","abstract":"The particular focus of this volume is a study of the influence of Timaeus on the development of Western cosmology in three axial periods of European culture: Late Antiquity, Middle Ages and Renaissance. In each period, the Timaeus was read in a different context and from different perspectives. During the Middle Ages, scholars were mostly interested in reconciling the rational cosmology of the Timaeus with the Christian understanding of creation. In Late Antiquity, the concordance of Plato with Aristotle was considered the most important issue, whereas in early modern times, the confrontation with the new mathematical physics offered possibilities for a fresh assessment of Plato's explanation of the cosmos. The present volume has three sections corresponding to these three periods of interpreting the Timaeus, each sectionis introduced by a synthesis of the main issues at discussion. This 'epochal' approach gives this volume its particular character. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KnuUmtY75XXXeEK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":321,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Proclus' Defence of the Timaeus against Aristotle's Objections. A reconstruction of a lost polemical treatise"]}
Title | Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985) |
Pages | 1-20 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lamberz, Erich |
Editor(s) | Pépin, Jean , Saffrey, Henri Dominique |
Translator(s) |
In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, daß die Kommentare aus der mündlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser mündlichen Exegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren mündlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussionen gehört zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die Unterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerklärung (theôria) und Einzelerklärung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage außer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten Kommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint deshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos und anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag mündlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen terminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einfügung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen Kommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WFCq8CflnlIPypA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1191","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1191,"authors_free":[{"id":1762,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":226,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lamberz, Erich","free_first_name":"Erich","free_last_name":"Lamberz","norm_person":{"id":226,"first_name":"Erich","last_name":"Lamberz","full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/125040709","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2057,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":227,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"P\u00e9pin","norm_person":{"id":227,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"P\u00e9pin","full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119165147","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2058,"entry_id":1191,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":228,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","free_first_name":"Henri Dominique","free_last_name":"Saffrey","norm_person":{"id":228,"first_name":"Henri Dominique","last_name":"Saffrey","full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130160059","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars","main_title":{"title":"Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"},"abstract":"In den bisherigen Untersuchungen zur Form der Kommentare des Proklos und der Neuplatoniker im allgemeinen ist vor allem Gewicht darauf gelegt worden, da\u00df die Kommentare aus der m\u00fcndlichen Exegese der Texte hervorgegangen sind und die Formen dieser m\u00fcndlichen \r\nExegese sich in den schriftlich fixierten Werken widerspiegeln. Neben Spuren m\u00fcndlicher Ausdrucksformen und Reflexen von Schuldiskussio\u00adnen geh\u00f6rt zu diesen Formen vor allem die Gliederung der Exegese in Abschnitte, die Vorlesungseinheiten (praxeis) entsprechen, und die \r\nUnterteilung der einzelnen Abschnitte in Allgemeinerkl\u00e4rung (the\u00f4ria) und Einzelerkl\u00e4rung (lexis). Bis jetzt blieb jedoch weitgehend die Frage au\u00dfer B etracht, ob und wie sich die von den Exegeten selbst redigierten \r\nKommentare von Vorlesungsnachschriften unterscheiden. Es erscheint \r\ndeshalb sinnvoll, den Blickwinkel einmal umzukehren und zu fragen, welche spezifischen Formelemente sich in den Kommentaren des Proklos \r\nund anderer Neuplatoniker aufzeigen lassen, wenn man sie in erster Linie als literarische Erzeugnisse und nicht als Niederschlag m\u00fcndlicher Exegese betrachtet. Im folgenden soll zu diesem Zweck nach einigen \r\nterminologischen Voruntersuchungen die Form der Lemmata, deren Einf\u00fcgung in den Kom m entartext und der Aufbau der einzelnen \r\nKommentarabschnitte besprochen werden. [Introduction, p. 1-2]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WFCq8CflnlIPypA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":226,"full_name":"Lamberz, Erich","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":227,"full_name":"P\u00e9pin, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":228,"full_name":"Saffrey, Henri Dominique","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1191,"section_of":159,"pages":"1-20","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":159,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Proclus, lecteur et interpr\u00e8te des anciens. Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre 1985)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"P\u00e9pin-Saffrey1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Du 5e si\u00e8cle jusqu'au d\u00e9but du 19e si\u00e8cle, Proclus fut consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme l'h\u00e9ritier par excellence de Platon, celui qui avait su tirer des dialogues un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique et coh\u00e9rent de la philosophie platonicienne. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QluMshmjYrV5JtV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":159,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Centre national de la recherche scientifique","series":"Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars"]}
Title | Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science |
Pages | 197-209 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in the fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle’s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, ‘more sharply than anyone’ (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus’doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a particular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evangélica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus’ adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus’ doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"430","_score":null,"_source":{"id":430,"authors_free":[{"id":580,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":581,"entry_id":430,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"},"abstract":"Judging from the number and content of his commentaries, Philoponus was a thinker in the Aristotelian tradition. One of his major achievements lies in \r\nthe fact that as a commentator he accepted and developed the heritage of his teacher Ammonius. For that reason alone it is remarkable that he composed a treatise which attacked vital topics of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy with little compromise. Although it is true that throughout Antiquity many philosophers ventured to criticise the great Aristotle, one may agree that Philoponus did so, as Cesare Cremonini put it in 1616, \u2018more sharply than anyone\u2019 (acerrime omnium).' Where does this attack fit into the context of Philoponus\u2019doctrinal development? No doubt his outspoken critique of Aristotle in the de Aetemitate Mundi contra Aristotelem somehow swayed Philoponus to desert the philosophical and join the theological camp. But the story is probably more complex. The general point of dissent was, as the title indicates, the doctrine of the eternity of the world. Being a Christian, Philoponus perhaps possessed a \r\nparticular motivation for launching his attack - as a feat of praeparatio evang\u00e9lica. This fact has been sufficiently recognised and appreciated. Less appreciated and studied, however, has been the philosophical side, i.e. the actual argument and structure of the treatise in question. Since it has not survived the content must be reconstructed from a number of substantial fragments found mainly in the commentaries of Philoponus\u2019 adversary Simplicius. An adequate treatment of the double controversy Simplicius v Philoponus v Aristotle would fill a volume on its own and cannot be the subject of this chapter.2 Instead, I will attempt to revise apparently firmly established views about the treatise, in particular its composition and date. This, it is hoped, may lead to a revised view of that treatise and at the same time encourage a more advanced study of Philoponus\u2019 doctrinal development in general. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dbFxqr9z9aZi48i","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":430,"section_of":1383,"pages":"197-209","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1383,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabij1987d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"All the chapters in this book are new, except for the inaugural lecture (Chapter 9), which I apologise for reprinting virtually unrevised and with the original lecture context still apparent. It seemed desirable, however, that so crucial a part ofthe controversy should be represented. The collection originated in a conference on Philoponus held at the Institute of Classical Studies in London in June 1983, which provided an opportunity for interested parties to pool knowledge from the many different disciplines that are relevant to his work. Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 6 are drawn from the conference, while two other conference papers, those of Henry Blumenthal and Richard Sorabji, are being incorporated into books in preparation (see Bibliography). Sorabji's main suggestions, however, are included in Chapter I in the discussion of matter and extension (pp 18 and 23). The remairnng chapters, apart from the inaugural lecture, were solicited or written for the volume, two of them (5 and 12) having been delivered first at a seminar on Ancient Science at the Institute of Classical Studies. [preface, p. ix-x]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/buhMZZl0djmIx9v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1383,"pubplace":"Ithaca, New York","publisher":"Cornell University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus' contra Aristotelem"]}
Title | Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 57-97 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mignucci, Mario |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Aristotle’s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle’s references to what is nowadays called ‘Leibniz’s Law’ (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be: (1) x=y ⟹ ∀F(F(x) ⟺ F(y))x=y⟹∀F(F(x)⟺F(y)) It is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the ‘principle of substitutivity’ (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem. First, I will consider Aristotle’s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle’s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"959","_score":null,"_source":{"id":959,"authors_free":[{"id":1439,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":259,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mignucci, Mario","free_first_name":"Mario","free_last_name":"Mignucci","norm_person":{"id":259,"first_name":"Mignucci","last_name":"Mario","full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194188885","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2083,"entry_id":959,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators","main_title":{"title":"Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"},"abstract":"Aristotle\u2019s conception of identity is too large a subject to be analyzed in a single article. I will try to discuss here just one of the many problems raised by his views on sameness. It is not, perhaps, the most stimulating question one could wish to see treated, but it is a question about logic, where I feel a little more at ease than among the complicated and obscure riddles of metaphysics. My subject will be Aristotle\u2019s references to what is nowadays called \u2018Leibniz\u2019s Law\u2019 (LL): if two objects x and y are the same, they both share all the same properties. A formal version of it could be:\r\n\r\n (1) x=y\u2005\u200a\u27f9\u2005\u200a\u2200F(F(x)\u2005\u200a\u27fa\u2005\u200aF(y))x=y\u27f9\u2200F(F(x)\u27faF(y))\r\n\r\nIt is perhaps worth remembering that (LL) must be distinguished from what is normally called the \u2018principle of substitutivity\u2019 (SP), according to which substitution of expressions that are said to be the same is truth-preserving. As has been shown, (LL) does not entail (SP), since there are counterexamples to (SP) that do not falsify (LL). Not only (SP), but also (LL) has been doubted by some modern logicians. The question is far from being settled, and it is perhaps of interest to examine how ancient logicians tried to manage this problem.\r\n\r\nFirst, I will consider Aristotle\u2019s statements about (LL) and the analyses he gives of some supposed counterexamples to this principle. Secondly, the interpretations of his view among his Greek commentators will be taken into account, and their distance from the position of the master evaluated. As Professor Moraux has taught us, the study of the Aristotelian tradition often gives us the opportunity of understanding Aristotle\u2019s own meaning better. [introduction p. 57-58]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VYZdFzrmNGSDth4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":259,"full_name":"Mignucci, Mario","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":959,"section_of":190,"pages":"57-97","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Puzzles about Identity. Aristotle and his Greek Commentators"]}
Title | Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficulté de la doctrine aristotélicienne de la qualité (Aristote Catégories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1980 |
Published in | Concepts et catégories dans la pensée antique |
Pages | 197-216 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narcy, Michel |
Editor(s) | Aubenque, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Au chapitre 8 des Catégories, consacré à la qualité (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l’a fait à propos des catégories précédentes (substance, quantité, relation), fait suivre son exposé de l’examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l’ordre de la qualité, se trouvent contrariété (enantiótes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to héttion). On peut noter d’ailleurs qu’à la réponse à ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des catégories de l’action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconnaître qu’elles constituent comme l’application aux catégories aristotéliciennes d’un système catégorial plus ancien, provenant de l’Académie et dérivé, à travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme. Il peut paraître étrange de délimiter ici, en vue d’une étude de la catégorie de qualité, un passage d’allure adventice, où vient pour ainsi dire s’entrecroiser avec le fil de l’exposé d’Aristote, et contredire l’assurance de sa classification, une problématique qui semble d’autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu’elle contribue surtout à jeter le doute sur la cohérence de l’exposé qui précède. À chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d’abord une réponse affirmative (contrariété : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c’est pour noter ensuite, à la règle ainsi posée, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrariété le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d’autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n’ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De même, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu’à la différence des autres qualités, la figure n’est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c’est ainsi l’une des quatre subdivisions de la qualité qui se voit assigner un statut à part. Rejoignant là l’objection que fait Plotin au principe même d’une division au sein de la qualité, on ne peut éviter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rangée sous cette catégorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le système catégorial académique, Aristote se trouve confronté à une difficulté dont il ne vient pas à bout, soit qu’il souligne ainsi l’inadéquation de la « grille » qu’il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. À moins que se révèlent, dans la difficulté précisément, pour autant qu’elle est comme une trace de la cassure opérée, et à moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d’être de la catégorie aristotélicienne de la qualité, et avec elle, la doctrine des catégories. L’exception constituée par la figure, en effet, n’est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune à propos de la contrariété, non seulement l’expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation à l’appui. Ce qui doit d’autant plus retenir l’attention, qu’il a tout d’abord travaillé à réduire une première exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la santé (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin égal apporté, d’abord à réduire une première exception, puis à en produire une autre, donne à croire qu’à entendre au plus près la difficulté, on a chance d’y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine. Examinons donc tout d’abord la première partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C’est l’affirmation que les qualités (tà poià) reçoivent « le plus et le moins » (tà mallon kai tà héttion) : « du blanc, en effet : l’un est dit plus et moins qu’un autre. Et du juste : l’un qu’un autre, plus ». [introduction p. 197-198] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"792","_score":null,"_source":{"id":792,"authors_free":[{"id":1169,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":277,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narcy, Michel","free_first_name":"Michel","free_last_name":"Narcy","norm_person":{"id":277,"first_name":"Michel","last_name":"Narcy","full_name":"Narcy, Michel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129449512","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1170,"entry_id":792,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":149,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Aubenque","norm_person":{"id":149,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Aubenque","full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118919458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)","main_title":{"title":"Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"},"abstract":"Au chapitre 8 des Cat\u00e9gories, consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la qualit\u00e9 (poiotes), Aristote, comme il l\u2019a fait \u00e0 propos des cat\u00e9gories pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes (substance, quantit\u00e9, relation), fait suivre son expos\u00e9 de l\u2019examen de deux questions : savoir si, dans l\u2019ordre de la qualit\u00e9, se trouvent contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 (enanti\u00f3tes) et accroissement ou diminution (to mallon kai to h\u00e9ttion). On peut noter d\u2019ailleurs qu\u2019\u00e0 la r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 ces deux questions se limiteront, au chapitre 9, les indications fournies au sujet des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019action et de la passion. Questions dont on a pu reconna\u00eetre qu\u2019elles constituent comme l\u2019application aux cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes d\u2019un syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial plus ancien, provenant de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie et d\u00e9riv\u00e9, \u00e0 travers le platonisme, du pythagorisme.\r\n\r\nIl peut para\u00eetre \u00e9trange de d\u00e9limiter ici, en vue d\u2019une \u00e9tude de la cat\u00e9gorie de qualit\u00e9, un passage d\u2019allure adventice, o\u00f9 vient pour ainsi dire s\u2019entrecroiser avec le fil de l\u2019expos\u00e9 d\u2019Aristote, et contredire l\u2019assurance de sa classification, une probl\u00e9matique qui semble d\u2019autant moins lui appartenir en propre qu\u2019elle contribue surtout \u00e0 jeter le doute sur la coh\u00e9rence de l\u2019expos\u00e9 qui pr\u00e9c\u00e8de. \u00c0 chacune des deux questions, en effet, Aristote donne tout d\u2019abord une r\u00e9ponse affirmative (contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 : 10 b 12 ; accroissement et diminution : 10 b 26), mais c\u2019est pour noter ensuite, \u00e0 la r\u00e8gle ainsi pos\u00e9e, des exceptions. Ainsi, donnant comme exemple de contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 le blanc et le noir (10 b 13), il remarque un peu plus bas que d\u2019autres couleurs, telles que le rouge et le jaune, n\u2019ont pas de contraires (10 b 16-17). De m\u00eame, dans le passage qui va nous occuper, affirme-t-il qu\u2019\u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence des autres qualit\u00e9s, la figure n\u2019est pas susceptible de plus et de moins : exception de taille, cette fois, puisque c\u2019est ainsi l\u2019une des quatre subdivisions de la qualit\u00e9 qui se voit assigner un statut \u00e0 part.\r\n\r\nRejoignant l\u00e0 l\u2019objection que fait Plotin au principe m\u00eame d\u2019une division au sein de la qualit\u00e9, on ne peut \u00e9viter de se demander pourquoi la figure est rang\u00e9e sous cette cat\u00e9gorie. Soit donc que, dans la rencontre avec le syst\u00e8me cat\u00e9gorial acad\u00e9mique, Aristote se trouve confront\u00e9 \u00e0 une difficult\u00e9 dont il ne vient pas \u00e0 bout, soit qu\u2019il souligne ainsi l\u2019inad\u00e9quation de la \u00ab grille \u00bb qu\u2019il abandonne, ce passage peut sembler rien moins que central dans le chapitre. \u00c0 moins que se r\u00e9v\u00e8lent, dans la difficult\u00e9 pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment, pour autant qu\u2019elle est comme une trace de la cassure op\u00e9r\u00e9e, et \u00e0 moins que, pourquoi pas, dans cette cassure se constituent, la signification et la raison d\u2019\u00eatre de la cat\u00e9gorie aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9, et avec elle, la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nL\u2019exception constitu\u00e9e par la figure, en effet, n\u2019est pas une faiblesse qui se laisse seulement apercevoir : Aristote, au contraire, loin de la masquer ou de la mentionner sans plus, comme il fait du rouge et du jaune \u00e0 propos de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9, non seulement l\u2019expose avec un soin particulier, mais produit une argumentation \u00e0 l\u2019appui. Ce qui doit d\u2019autant plus retenir l\u2019attention, qu\u2019il a tout d\u2019abord travaill\u00e9 \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, celle que constitueraient des dispositions telles que la justice ou la sant\u00e9 (10 b 30-11 a 5). Le soin \u00e9gal apport\u00e9, d\u2019abord \u00e0 r\u00e9duire une premi\u00e8re exception, puis \u00e0 en produire une autre, donne \u00e0 croire qu\u2019\u00e0 entendre au plus pr\u00e8s la difficult\u00e9, on a chance d\u2019y saisir une ligne de force de la doctrine.\r\n\r\nExaminons donc tout d\u2019abord la premi\u00e8re partie de notre passage (10 b 26-11 a 5). C\u2019est l\u2019affirmation que les qualit\u00e9s (t\u00e0 poi\u00e0) re\u00e7oivent \u00ab le plus et le moins \u00bb (t\u00e0 mallon kai t\u00e0 h\u00e9ttion) : \u00ab du blanc, en effet : l\u2019un est dit plus et moins qu\u2019un autre. Et du juste : l\u2019un qu\u2019un autre, plus \u00bb. [introduction p. 197-198]","btype":2,"date":"1980","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qCqUG7AShSYKtrM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":277,"full_name":"Narcy, Michel","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":149,"full_name":"Aubenque, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":792,"section_of":302,"pages":"197-216","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":302,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Concepts et cat\u00e9gories dans la pens\u00e9e antique","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aubenque1980b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1980","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1980","abstract":"Depuis Aristote, on entend par cat\u00e9gories des concepts tr\u00e8s g\u00e9n\u00e9raux, dont la g\u00e9n\u00e9ralit\u00e9 ne d\u00e9rive pas de l\u2019exp\u00e9rience, mais en quelque sorte la pr\u00e9c\u00e8de, puisque c\u2019est eux et eux seuls qui nous permettent de l\u2019organiser et de la penser. Ces concepts \u2013 substance, quantit\u00e9, relation, qualit\u00e9, lieu, temps, action, passion, situation, avoir \u2013 sont-ils des structures universelles de toute pens\u00e9e ou bien sont-ils li\u00e9s aux particularit\u00e9s s\u00e9mantiques ou syntaxiques d\u2019un syst\u00e8me linguistique particulier, en l\u2019occurrence de la langue grecque, \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de laquelle ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pour la premi\u00e8re fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9s et rassembl\u00e9s?\r\nLes \u00e9tudes ici r\u00e9unies, issues d\u2019un s\u00e9minaire qui s\u2019est poursuivi durant plusieurs ann\u00e9es au Centre de recherche sur la Pens\u00e9e antique de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 de Paris-Sorbonne, associ\u00e9 au C.N.R.S. (Centre L\u00e9on-Robin), s\u2019efforcent d\u2019apporter des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de r\u00e9ponse \u00e0 cette grande question, qui demeure au centre des discussions contemporaines sur les rapports de la philosophie et du langage. Leur apport sp\u00e9cifique consiste dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se rigoureuse des analyses du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien des Cat\u00e9gories, \u00e9clair\u00e9 par les d\u00e9veloppements ult\u00e9rieurs de la doctrine, tels que nous les connaissons notamment \u00e0 travers le Commentaire du N\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Certaines de ces \u00e9tudes examinent l\u2019influence ou les transformations des cat\u00e9gories aristot\u00e9liciennes chez les Sto\u00efciens, les grammairiens grecs de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, les N\u00e9oplatoniciens tardifs, les P\u00e8res de l\u2019\u00c9glise et dans la tradition latine antique et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FGpf7U5Cy1dboYI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":302,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Bibliotheque d\u2019histoire de la philosophie","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Qu'est-ce qu'une figure? Une difficult\u00e9 de la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la qualit\u00e9 (Aristote Cat\u00e9gories 8, 10 b 26-11 a 14)"]}
Title | Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 225-245 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term "eidos" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of "eidos." The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"669","_score":null,"_source":{"id":669,"authors_free":[{"id":980,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":981,"entry_id":669,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"The text discusses research on the fragments of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It focuses on a scholia found in Codex Regius (Paris, gr. 1853) that mentions Simplicius as the author of a commentary on Aristotle's work. The scholia refers to a specific passage in Metaphysics I, 983 b 8, where the interpretation of the term \"eidos\" creates difficulties. The scholia contrasts the interpretations proposed by Alexandre d'Aphrodise and Simplicius, highlighting their differing views on the meaning of \"eidos.\" The author argues that the scholia indicates familiarity with Simplicius' commentary, suggesting that Simplicius was known and studied in the first half of the 13th century. The scholia also mentions Michel d'Ephese and Jean Italos, providing clues about the context and potential dating of the scholia's composition. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/R2DUCY7PTorhIy2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":669,"section_of":171,"pages":"225-245","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 101-125 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the κόσμος. Plato’s and Aristotle’s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities. From our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding of Simplicius’ way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius’ interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1154","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1154,"authors_free":[{"id":1728,"entry_id":1154,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall address a particular aspect of the disharmony, more precisely how it is interpreted and resolved by Simplicius in his commentary\r\non Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens: the question about the being and temporality of the \u03ba\u1f79\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2. Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s positions appear to be contrary on this point, since the former, in the Timaeus, insists on the creation of the world by the Demiurge, whereas the latter, in his On the Heavens, asserts the eternity of the heavens. Far from being a triviality, this difference will lead Simplicius to develop hermeneutical strategies designed to restore the harmony between his authorities.\r\nFrom our perspective, the question about the eternity of the world offers a fruitful case study, insofar as it forces Simplicius to mobilize all the strategies he usually uses in this commentary to restore the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Also I shall lead here a parallel investigation on two separate fronts. First, I will identify the methodological principles implemented through the attempt at harmonising, so as to contribute to our understanding\r\nof Simplicius\u2019 way of exegesis. Then, I will investigate the conceptual effect, regarding cosmology, reached by this attempt. In other words, I will explore how Simplicius\u2019 interpretative tools lead him to produce some new philosophical theses. [Introduction, pp. 101 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vZVYLur1bCGwnlh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1154,"section_of":289,"pages":"101-125","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Reconciling Plato's and Aristotle's Cosmologies. Attempts at Harmonization in Simplicius"]}
Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 231-262 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"]}
Title | Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Apprendre à philosopher dans l'Antiquité : l'enseignement du Manuel d'Épictète et son commentaire néoplatonicien |
Pages | 183-211 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Pierre , Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut , Hadot, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Nous avons vu, à l’aide de plusieurs exemples, la manière dont le néoplatonicien Simplicius avait commenté un texte stoïcien. Nous avons constaté que Simplicius ne peut s’empêcher de réintroduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure où ses auditeurs ou lecteurs débutants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines néoplatoniciennes très complexes, qui n’ont rien à voir avec le texte du Manuel. Les conclusions que l’on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la méthode exégétique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur Épictète, mais également pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caractérise la méthode exégétique de Simplicius commentant les traités d’Aristote, c’est la simplicité et l’objectivité. Il en conclut que, puisque l’auteur du commentaire du De anima d’Aristote attribué à Simplicius donne libre cours à son interprétation néoplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut être l’auteur de ce commentaire. Il est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les œuvres de logique, le néoplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d’occasions d’introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va déjà autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s’agit du De anima, traité qui se plaçait, dans le cursus néoplatonicien, immédiatement avant la Métaphysique d’Aristote, et qui abordait des problèmes métaphysiques, la situation était toute différente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines néoplatoniciennes différaient largement de celles d’Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver à chaque pas l’harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d’Aristote revenait à un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente différence de méthode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l’âme que professaient Aristote et les néoplatoniciens. Plus généralement, quand on compare la position d’un stoïcien comme Épictète concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d’un néoplatonicien, en l’occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d’autonomie à l’égard du divin chez le philosophe néoplatonicien. Le stoïcien, en s’appuyant exclusivement sur la cohérence de son système et sur la force de sa raison, qu’il croit apte à diriger une vie vertueuse s’il est décidé à la suivre, se considère maître autonome de sa relation à Dieu. La question du salut de son âme après sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui. Il en va autrement du philosophe néoplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son âme, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement systématisée et abstraite et d’une vie vertueuse, de l’aide des dieux, en partie obtenue grâce à des rites qu’il croit transmis par des « révélations ». Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses païennes, ressemble finalement à celle du christianisme recourant à des rites et des sacrements. À vrai dire, lorsqu'il s’agit du philosophe néoplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la théurgie correspondant à son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, à une union mystique avec l’Un ou l’Ineffable. Mais tandis que Plotin arrivait à cette union par des moyens autonomes, les néoplatoniciens à partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d’y arriver tout à fait par eux-mêmes ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs âmes dans leur patrie sans l’aide d’un certain rituel. Il persiste néanmoins de grandes différences entre la « religion » néoplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d’autres religions qui ont la prétention de posséder seules la vérité. La plus importante de ces différences, à mes yeux, consiste en la tolérance et l’ouverture d’esprit vis-à-vis des religions étrangères. Nous avons vu comment les néoplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des différents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences étaient des manifestations d’une même divinité, appropriées à la diversité des régions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux différentes religions localement implantées une sorte d’égalité de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu’on arrivait en qualité d’étranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux différent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et même s’y conformer au moins extérieurement. Cet esprit d’ouverture et de tolérance religieuse s’est largement perdu avec la fin de l’Antiquité gréco-romaine et nous fait tellement défaut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi Épictète, auraient certainement approuvé les mots du préfet païen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la décision de l’empereur chrétien de faire enlever de la salle du Sénat romain l’autel de la Victoire : « Nous contemplons les mêmes astres, le ciel nous est commun, le même monde nous enveloppe. Qu’importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la vérité ? À un si grand mystère on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. » [conclusion p. 208-211] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"945","_score":null,"_source":{"id":945,"authors_free":[{"id":1409,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1410,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1411,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1412,"entry_id":945,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":158,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hadot, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":158,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115663517","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Nous avons vu, \u00e0 l\u2019aide de plusieurs exemples, la mani\u00e8re dont le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius avait comment\u00e9 un texte sto\u00efcien. Nous avons constat\u00e9 que Simplicius ne peut s\u2019emp\u00eacher de r\u00e9introduire dans son commentaire, dans la mesure o\u00f9 ses auditeurs ou lecteurs d\u00e9butants peuvent les comprendre, des doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes tr\u00e8s complexes, qui n\u2019ont rien \u00e0 voir avec le texte du Manuel.\r\n\r\nLes conclusions que l\u2019on peut tirer de ces exemples au sujet de la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne sont pas valables seulement pour son commentaire sur \u00c9pict\u00e8te, mais \u00e9galement pour ses commentaires sur Aristote. Certains historiens modernes de la philosophie, notamment Carlos Steel, affirment que ce qui caract\u00e9rise la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius commentant les trait\u00e9s d\u2019Aristote, c\u2019est la simplicit\u00e9 et l\u2019objectivit\u00e9. Il en conclut que, puisque l\u2019auteur du commentaire du De anima d\u2019Aristote attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Simplicius donne libre cours \u00e0 son interpr\u00e9tation n\u00e9oplatonicienne, Simplicius ne peut \u00eatre l\u2019auteur de ce commentaire.\r\n\r\nIl est vrai que, dans les commentaires sur les \u0153uvres de logique, le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius trouve peu d\u2019occasions d\u2019introduire sa philosophie propre. Il en va d\u00e9j\u00e0 autrement en ce qui concerne les commentaires sur la Physique et le De caelo. Mais lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du De anima, trait\u00e9 qui se pla\u00e7ait, dans le cursus n\u00e9oplatonicien, imm\u00e9diatement avant la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote, et qui abordait des probl\u00e8mes m\u00e9taphysiques, la situation \u00e9tait toute diff\u00e9rente. Sur de tels sujets, les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes diff\u00e9raient largement de celles d\u2019Aristote, en sorte que le fait de devoir prouver \u00e0 chaque pas l\u2019harmonie des philosophies de Platon et d\u2019Aristote revenait \u00e0 un exercice de haute voltige. Cette apparente diff\u00e9rence de m\u00e9thode provient donc de la divergence entre les doctrines au sujet de l\u2019\u00e2me que professaient Aristote et les n\u00e9oplatoniciens.\r\n\r\nPlus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, quand on compare la position d\u2019un sto\u00efcien comme \u00c9pict\u00e8te concernant le rapport entre philosophie et religion avec celle d\u2019un n\u00e9oplatonicien, en l\u2019occurrence Simplicius, on constate une perte d\u2019autonomie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard du divin chez le philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien. Le sto\u00efcien, en s\u2019appuyant exclusivement sur la coh\u00e9rence de son syst\u00e8me et sur la force de sa raison, qu\u2019il croit apte \u00e0 diriger une vie vertueuse s\u2019il est d\u00e9cid\u00e9 \u00e0 la suivre, se consid\u00e8re ma\u00eetre autonome de sa relation \u00e0 Dieu. La question du salut de son \u00e2me apr\u00e8s sa mort ne se pose pas pour lui.\r\n\r\nIl en va autrement du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien (exception faite de Plotin), qui, pour sauver son \u00e2me, a besoin, en plus de sa philosophie hautement syst\u00e9matis\u00e9e et abstraite et d\u2019une vie vertueuse, de l\u2019aide des dieux, en partie obtenue gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 des rites qu\u2019il croit transmis par des \u00ab r\u00e9v\u00e9lations \u00bb. Cette attitude, tout en se fondant sur les traditions religieuses pa\u00efennes, ressemble finalement \u00e0 celle du christianisme recourant \u00e0 des rites et des sacrements. \u00c0 vrai dire, lorsqu'il s\u2019agit du philosophe n\u00e9oplatonicien accompli, nous ne savons presque rien du contenu et des formes que prend la th\u00e9urgie correspondant \u00e0 son niveau ; elle semble, en tout cas, devoir aboutir alors, comme la philosophie de Plotin, \u00e0 une union mystique avec l\u2019Un ou l\u2019Ineffable.\r\n\r\nMais tandis que Plotin arrivait \u00e0 cette union par des moyens autonomes, les n\u00e9oplatoniciens \u00e0 partir de Jamblique ne se croyaient plus capables d\u2019y arriver tout \u00e0 fait par eux-m\u00eames ni de pouvoir garantir le retour de leurs \u00e2mes dans leur patrie sans l\u2019aide d\u2019un certain rituel. Il persiste n\u00e9anmoins de grandes diff\u00e9rences entre la \u00ab religion \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne et le christianisme ou d\u2019autres religions qui ont la pr\u00e9tention de poss\u00e9der seules la v\u00e9rit\u00e9. La plus importante de ces diff\u00e9rences, \u00e0 mes yeux, consiste en la tol\u00e9rance et l\u2019ouverture d\u2019esprit vis-\u00e0-vis des religions \u00e9trang\u00e8res.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu comment les n\u00e9oplatoniciens expliquaient les divergences entre les religions des diff\u00e9rents peuples : pour eux, ces divergences \u00e9taient des manifestations d\u2019une m\u00eame divinit\u00e9, appropri\u00e9es \u00e0 la diversit\u00e9 des r\u00e9gions de la terre et des peuples qui les habitent. Ce point de vue garantissait aux diff\u00e9rentes religions localement implant\u00e9es une sorte d\u2019\u00e9galit\u00e9 de valeur et impliquait aussi que, lorsqu\u2019on arrivait en qualit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00e9tranger dans un environnement cultuel et religieux diff\u00e9rent, on devait respecter les cultes locaux et m\u00eame s\u2019y conformer au moins ext\u00e9rieurement.\r\n\r\nCet esprit d\u2019ouverture et de tol\u00e9rance religieuse s\u2019est largement perdu avec la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 gr\u00e9co-romaine et nous fait tellement d\u00e9faut actuellement. Simplicius, mais aussi \u00c9pict\u00e8te, auraient certainement approuv\u00e9 les mots du pr\u00e9fet pa\u00efen Symmaque, qui protestait en 384 contre la d\u00e9cision de l\u2019empereur chr\u00e9tien de faire enlever de la salle du S\u00e9nat romain l\u2019autel de la Victoire :\r\n\r\n \u00ab Nous contemplons les m\u00eames astres, le ciel nous est commun, le m\u00eame monde nous enveloppe. Qu\u2019importe la voie de la sagesse dans laquelle chacun cherche la v\u00e9rit\u00e9 ? \u00c0 un si grand myst\u00e8re on ne parvient pas par un seul chemin. \u00bb [conclusion p. 208-211]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YIYhnMyXsA6s6Gi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":158,"full_name":"Hadot, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":945,"section_of":218,"pages":"183-211","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":218,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"fr","title":"Apprendre \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 : l'enseignement du Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te et son commentaire n\u00e9oplatonicien","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot2004d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"L'ouvrage de I. et P. Hadot constitue une introduction au Manuel d'Epict\u00e8te, \u0153uvre sto\u00efcienne majeure du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, ainsi qu'au commentaire du Manuel r\u00e9dig\u00e9 trois si\u00e8cles plus tard par le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius. Une approche d'ensemble de ces \u0153uvres, de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques formelles et doctrinales, ainsi que l'\u00e9tude de quelques th\u00e8mes choisis (la distinction de \" ce qui d\u00e9pend de nous \" et de \" ce qui ne d\u00e9pend pas de nous \", les paraboles de l'escale et du banquet, le rapport entre religion et philosophie) permettent de cerner des postures philosophiques fondamentales, touchant la question de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9, celle du destin et du libre arbitre, ou encore de notre rapport aux maux et \u00e0 la mort. Par l\u00e0, ce livre \u00e0 deux voix repr\u00e9sente aussi et avant tout une m\u00e9ditation sur le sens fondamental de l'activit\u00e9 philosophique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ; comme l'\u00e9crivent les auteurs : \" En utilisant la m\u00e9thode ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique, nous avons eu l'intention de r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 une interrogation, \u00e0 la fois historique et existentielle comment apprenait-on \u00e0 philosopher dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 ? Car le Manuel et son commentaire par Simplicius peuvent nous apporter de pr\u00e9cieux renseignements sur la nature exacte et la pratique de la philosophie antique.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gsp6KGfJmhS9A3Z","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":218,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Librairie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale fran\u00e7aise","series":"Le livre de poche : r\u00e9f\u00e9rences","volume":"603","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Religion et philosophie chez Simplicius"]}
Title | Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1910 |
Published in | Genethliakon |
Pages | 105-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Praechter, Karl |
Editor(s) | Robert, Carl |
Translator(s) |
Karl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity. [from the notices of the book] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZUNcPDq2qaf1DRB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1065","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1065,"authors_free":[{"id":1615,"entry_id":1065,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":293,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Praechter, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Praechter","norm_person":{"id":293,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Praechter","full_name":"Praechter, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116278609","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1616,"entry_id":1065,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":294,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robert, Carl","free_first_name":"Carl","free_last_name":"Robert","norm_person":{"id":294,"first_name":"Carl","last_name":"Robert","full_name":"Robert, Carl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116575956","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"Karl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity. [from the notices of the book]","btype":2,"date":"1910","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZUNcPDq2qaf1DRB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":293,"full_name":"Praechter, Karl","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":294,"full_name":"Robert, Carl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1065,"section_of":1600,"pages":"105-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1600,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Genethliakon","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Robert1910","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1910","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This is a series of studies on different subjects dedicated by friends and former pupils to Carl Robert on his attaining his sixtieth birthday. The first two, by Benedictus Niese and Georg Wissowa respectively, deal with three chapters in the history of Elis and Naevius and the Metelli. Both these historical inquiries are characterized by the employment of similar methods of criticism. Certain events, said to have taken place at a particular period, are held never to have taken place at that time, but to have been carried back from the history of a later day. Thus, Niese believes that the stories of the repeated quarrels between Elis and Pisa have no historical foundation, except in the single instance of the years 365\u2013364 B.C., when the Pisatae for a brief period formed a separate community and, in conjunction with the Arcadians, carried out the Olympic Games. Wissowa, in Naevius and the Metelli, endeavors to show that the story of the poet's quarrel with that house is a figment derived from a later period. The line fato Metelli Romae fiunt consules is, he thinks, quite pointless in relation to the Metelli of Naevius' day. It would apply forcibly, however, to the period of the Gracchi, in which the Metelli were singularly prominent as holders of high office. The traditional reply, malum dabunt Metelli Naevio poetae, Wissowa attributes to Caesius Bassus in Nero's time, when it was composed as a model of a Saturnian line. It may be suggested that the above method of historical criticism (very popular at the present time) may be carried a little too far. It is true that the historian is frequently tempted to add to the glory of his country in early times, but is it true that there is an equal tendency to fabricate history when no such motive can be assigned? The arguments of both Niese and Wissowa are ingenious, but hardly convincing.\r\n\r\nBechtel subjects the names of persons as published by Frankel in the fourth volume of I.O. to a searching criticism. A fair number of errors, certain or probable, are pointed out, but they are perhaps scarcely serious enough (consideration being had to the magnitude of the work) to justify the rather severe tone of criticism employed. Bechtel's proposed corrections are, however, likely to win approval for the most part. Otto Kern discusses the origin of the collection of hymns comprehended under the title \u1f48\u03c1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u039c\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9. These were apparently designed for the use of a body of mystae devoted to the service of Dionysos. The occurrence of the names of the goddess Hipta and of Dionysos Erikepaios both in these hymns and in inscriptions recently discovered in Asia Minor leads Kern to look to Asia Minor rather than to Egypt for their origin. The connection between the later Orphism and magical inscriptions is rightly pointed out by Kern. There is no doubt that the Gnostic and magical inscriptions on metal foil are a continuation of the Orphic inscriptions on similar material.\r\n\r\nKarl Praechter deals at some length with the tendencies and schools of Neoplatonism. His classification differs materially from that of Zeller, who divided the Neoplatonists into three schools according to their order of progress, viz. the school of Plotinus, the Syrian school of Iamblichus, and the school of Athens, whose foremost representative was Proclus. Praechter maintains that the system was founded by Plotinus and Porphyrius; that Iamblichus then developed the doctrines in a speculative and mystic direction, the result being seen in two schools, the Syrian and the Athenian. A separate and distinctively religious tendency is manifested in the Pergamene school of Aidesios and Chrysanthios. Neoplatonism ends with the learned schools of Alexandria and the West, of which Hypatia and Macrobius were representative. Neoplatonism undoubtedly derives much of its interest from the fact that it forms a kind of connecting link between Ancient Philosophy and Christianity.\r\n\r\nEduard Meyer chooses for his study Hesiod's Works and Days, and in particular the part dealing with the Five Races of Mankind. In general, it may be remarked that his interpretations do not differ greatly from those of the late Dr. Adam in his Religious Teachers of Greece. The central idea of the poem is, according to Meyer, 'the dignity of labour'; according to Adam, 'Justice between man and man.' These views, it may be pointed out, are united in the Platonic conception of Justice as consisting in the doing by each man of the work nature intended him to do. These broodings over the relation of man to man (says Wissowa) lead the poet to take a wider view of the development of mankind in his description of the Five Ages. The golden and silver ages are a picture of decline in a race of ideal beings; the bronze and iron ages are a picture of a decline in morals accompanying an improvement in culture, a phenomenon noted by the poet from his own observation. The heroic age is interpolated between these two in order to suit the general belief in its existence; it is also a ray of hope piercing the gloom of Hesiod's pessimism. Professor Meyer, as Professor Mair in his recent translation of Hesiod, emphasizes the almost Hebraic spirit of religion pervading the poem.\r\n\r\nUlrich Wilcken devotes an extremely interesting article to a fresh study of a Greek papyrus found by Prof. Petrie at Hawara in 1889. This was at first regarded by Prof. Sayce as a fragment of a lost history of Sicily, perhaps that of Timaeus. Dr. Wilcken, however, in that same year expressed the opinion that the fragment really formed part of a descriptive guide to Athens and the Peiraeus. This conclusion is amply confirmed by the present very ingenious study. Dr. Wilcken successfully distinguishes portions describing the Peiraeus (including the mention of an otherwise unknown sundial), Munichia (with a mention of 'the famous shrine of Artemis'), and the circuit of the Peiraeus wall, which is here said to measure ninety-odd stades, whereas the Themistoclean wall described by Thucydides measured but sixty. Hence, the wall described must be the wall of Konon. The manuscript goes on to describe the Long Walls and the Phaleric wall (mentioning the hill Sikelia) and breaks off just at the beginning of an account of 'the town of Theseus.' It is probable that this guide was written at the beginning of the third century B.C., though the papyrus is to be dated at about 100 A.D. The name of the author must remain uncertain, though it is conceivably the work of Diodorus the Periegetes.\r\n\r\nThe concluding study by Benno Erdmann on the philosophy of Spinoza falls outside the scope of this Journal. [notices of book]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wxEGw3MZ3aRDjPW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1600,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"Weidmann","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus"]}
Title | Roman Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome |
Pages | 1-69 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Barnes, Jonathan |
Editor(s) | Barnes, Jonathan , Griffin, Miriam |
Translator(s) |
When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived—and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens—whence, as part of Sulla’s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the ‘Roman edition’ of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle’s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text. Andronicus’ Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle’s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus—and to Sulla. That story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven—and in any event, the story is a peach. My concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle’s texts reached Rome—and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle’s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia—that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"961","_score":null,"_source":{"id":961,"authors_free":[{"id":1442,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1443,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":417,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Griffin, Miriam","free_first_name":"Miriam","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":417,"first_name":"Miriam","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121037975","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2242,"entry_id":961,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":416,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","free_first_name":"Jonathan","free_last_name":"Barnes","norm_person":{"id":416,"first_name":"Jonathan","last_name":"Barnes","full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134306627","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Roman Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Roman Aristotle"},"abstract":"When Theophrastus died, his library, which included the library of Aristotle, was carried off to the Troad. His successors found nothing much to read; the Lyceum sank into a decline; and Peripatetic ideas had little influence on the course of Hellenistic philosophy. It was only with the rediscovery of the library that Aristotelianism revived\u2014and it revived in Italy. For the library went from the Troad to Athens\u2014whence, as part of Sulla\u2019s war booty, to Rome. There, Andronicus of Rhodes produced the \u2018Roman edition\u2019 of the corpus Aristotelicum. It was the first complete and systematic version of Aristotle\u2019s works, the first publication in their full form of the technical treatises, the first genuinely critical edition of the text.\r\n\r\nAndronicus\u2019 Roman edition caused a sensation. It revitalized the languishing Peripatetics. It set off an explosion of Aristotelian studies. It laid the foundation for all subsequent editions of Aristotle\u2019s works, including our modern texts. When we read Aristotle, we should pour a libation to Andronicus\u2014and to Sulla.\r\n\r\nThat story is the main subject of the following pages. It is familiar enough; my argument will be laborious; I have nothing new to say about it; and my general conclusions are dispiritingly skeptical. But recent scholarship on the topic has taken to the bottle of fantasy and stumbled drunkenly from one dogmatism to the next. Another look at the pertinent texts may be forgiven\u2014and in any event, the story is a peach.\r\n\r\nMy concern (let me stress at the start) is the way in which Aristotle\u2019s texts reached Rome\u2014and us. I am not concerned with the general influence of Peripatetic ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a vast and complex question; nor am I concerned with the specific influence of Aristotle\u2019s ideas on the Roman intelligentsia\u2014that is a different question, less vast and more complex. Indeed, I deal neither with the history of ideas nor with the history of philosophy: my subject is an episode in the history of books and the book trade. [introduction p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/u9wKWex3PBO13aQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":417,"full_name":"Griffin, Miriam","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":416,"full_name":"Barnes, Jonathan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":961,"section_of":283,"pages":"1-69","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":283,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Barnes\/Griffin1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"The mutual interaction of philosophy and Roman political and cultural life has aroused more and more interest in recent years among students of classical literature, Roman history, and ancient philosophy. In this volume, which gathers together some of the papers originally delivered at a series of seminars in the University of Oxford, scholars from all three disciplines explore the role of Platonism and Aristotelianism in Roman intellectual, cultural, and political life from the second century BC to the third century AD.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y4n6429uWaNLuD2","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":283,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Roman Aristotle"]}
Title | Science théologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | De l'Antiquité tardive au Moyen Âge. Études de logique aristotélicienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes à Henri Hugonnard-Roche |
Pages | 277-363 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Coda, Elisa , Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia |
Translator(s) |
En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen Âge latin, sur l’astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d’Aristote, et plus généralement sur la postérité syriaque et arabe de la pensée aristotélicienne, cette étude générale portera sur un texte grec de l’Antiquité tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo. Son propos est de considérer la nature de la religion philosophique néoplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d’en proposer une interprétation d’ensemble, en nouant les fils d’une recherche engagée dans trois publications antérieures : un article ancien consacré à la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et à la question de la structure physique de la substance céleste, et deux autres études, plus récentes, consacrées à la triade chaldaïque Amour - Vérité - Foi (Érōs, Alêtheia, Pistis), qui a été formalisée par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la prière, et sur laquelle les commentaires à la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de précieux témoignages. Cette triade de puissances anagogiques est à l’œuvre notamment dans cet « hymne » au Démiurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la présente enquête, consacrée à une interprétation globale de l’œuvre de Simplicius, on complétera le dossier déjà rassemblé au sujet de la triade chaldaïque, en produisant notamment deux textes supplémentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l’élaboration d’une pistis philosophique, à l’extrême fin de l’Antiquité, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse païenne contre l’« athéisme » chrétien. La traduction commentée d’un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d’étudier de près les présupposés spécifiquement néoplatoniciens qui guident l’exégète dans sa lecture d’Aristote, et les enjeux théologiques qui dominent son interprétation du De Caelo et préparent, dans l’expérience de la Foi, une union de « sympathie » avec la substance même du Ciel et avec le Démiurge. L’étude des œuvres philosophiques de l’Antiquité tardive, principalement des textes néoplatoniciens grecs, favorisée par un nombre impressionnant d’éditions critiques d’importance majeure, a connu ces dernières décennies un profond renouvellement herméneutique, grâce à une compréhension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-mêmes, mais aussi à une attention accrue portée aux dimensions rhétoriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont inséparables du très complexe système philosophique en devenir, forgé pendant près de quatre siècles, de Porphyre jusqu’aux derniers professeurs d’Alexandrie. L’étude du néoplatonisme ne peut être séparée de l’histoire générale, politique et religieuse, de l’Antiquité tardive. La théologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement liées, soit que la théologie apparaisse comme une « partie » de la philosophie, soit que l’ensemble du système philosophique se désigne lui-même comme une théologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitulés Peri tôn kata Platōna Theologias (Théologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologikê (Éléments de théologie), qui présentent selon des modes d’exposition très différents le déploiement de l’ensemble du système. La théologie savante s’enrichit et s’accompagne d’autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie même des philosophes néoplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels théurgiques, formes diverses de la piété à l’égard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la polémique anti-chrétienne. L’interprétation des textes eux-mêmes a été renouvelée par une attention accrue portée aux genres littéraires philosophiques et à la dimension pragmatique des œuvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d’une réflexion sur les « jeux de langage » de Wittgenstein, ont contribué à renouveler l’interprétation des commentaires néoplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisagés comme des œuvres littéraires à part entière, avec leur régime spécifique de systématicité, leurs règles, leurs codes, leurs finalités pragmatiques propres. Au-delà de l’érudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caractérise le discours philosophique – nourri à la fois de la tradition péripatéticienne et des recherches des exégètes néoplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre – ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de méditation spirituelle à finalité anagogique, que l’auteur pratique à la fois pour lui-même et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils relèvent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des éléments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":500,"authors_free":[{"id":690,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":691,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":692,"entry_id":500,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":213,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","free_first_name":"Cecilia","free_last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","norm_person":{"id":213,"first_name":"Cecilia","last_name":"Martini Bonadeo","full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1047649543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"En hommage aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche sur la philosophie naturelle dans le Moyen \u00c2ge latin, sur l\u2019astronomie et la cosmologie, mais aussi sur les commentaires arabes au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote, et plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement sur la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 syriaque et arabe de la pens\u00e9e aristot\u00e9licienne, cette \u00e9tude g\u00e9n\u00e9rale portera sur un texte grec de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo.\r\n\r\nSon propos est de consid\u00e9rer la nature de la religion philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans le commentaire de Simplicius et d\u2019en proposer une interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019ensemble, en nouant les fils d\u2019une recherche engag\u00e9e dans trois publications ant\u00e9rieures : un article ancien consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon et \u00e0 la question de la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste, et deux autres \u00e9tudes, plus r\u00e9centes, consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 la triade chalda\u00efque Amour - V\u00e9rit\u00e9 - Foi (\u00c9r\u014ds, Al\u00eatheia, Pistis), qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 formalis\u00e9e par Proclus comme principe dynamique de la pri\u00e8re, et sur laquelle les commentaires \u00e0 la Physique et au De Caelo offrent de pr\u00e9cieux t\u00e9moignages.\r\n\r\nCette triade de puissances anagogiques est \u00e0 l\u2019\u0153uvre notamment dans cet \u00ab hymne \u00bb au D\u00e9miurge que constitue le Commentaire au De Caelo. Au cours de la pr\u00e9sente enqu\u00eate, consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 une interpr\u00e9tation globale de l\u2019\u0153uvre de Simplicius, on compl\u00e9tera le dossier d\u00e9j\u00e0 rassembl\u00e9 au sujet de la triade chalda\u00efque, en produisant notamment deux textes suppl\u00e9mentaires de Simplicius qui confirment explicitement que l\u2019\u00e9laboration d\u2019une pistis philosophique, \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, doit se comprendre dans le contexte de la controverse pa\u00efenne contre l\u2019\u00ab ath\u00e9isme \u00bb chr\u00e9tien.\r\n\r\nLa traduction comment\u00e9e d\u2019un long extrait du commentaire, en annexe, permettra enfin d\u2019\u00e9tudier de pr\u00e8s les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s sp\u00e9cifiquement n\u00e9oplatoniciens qui guident l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te dans sa lecture d\u2019Aristote, et les enjeux th\u00e9ologiques qui dominent son interpr\u00e9tation du De Caelo et pr\u00e9parent, dans l\u2019exp\u00e9rience de la Foi, une union de \u00ab sympathie \u00bb avec la substance m\u00eame du Ciel et avec le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude des \u0153uvres philosophiques de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive, principalement des textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens grecs, favoris\u00e9e par un nombre impressionnant d\u2019\u00e9ditions critiques d\u2019importance majeure, a connu ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies un profond renouvellement herm\u00e9neutique, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 une compr\u00e9hension toujours approfondie des doctrines elles-m\u00eames, mais aussi \u00e0 une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux dimensions rh\u00e9toriques de ces textes, comme aux enjeux historiques, politiques, religieux, qui sont ins\u00e9parables du tr\u00e8s complexe syst\u00e8me philosophique en devenir, forg\u00e9 pendant pr\u00e8s de quatre si\u00e8cles, de Porphyre jusqu\u2019aux derniers professeurs d\u2019Alexandrie.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude du n\u00e9oplatonisme ne peut \u00eatre s\u00e9par\u00e9e de l\u2019histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale, politique et religieuse, de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. La th\u00e9ologie savante et la philosophie sont intimement li\u00e9es, soit que la th\u00e9ologie apparaisse comme une \u00ab partie \u00bb de la philosophie, soit que l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me philosophique se d\u00e9signe lui-m\u00eame comme une th\u00e9ologie, ainsi que le montrent les ouvrages majeurs de Proclus, intitul\u00e9s Peri t\u00f4n kata Plat\u014dna Theologias (Th\u00e9ologie Platonicienne) ou Stoicheiosis Theologik\u00ea (\u00c9l\u00e9ments de th\u00e9ologie), qui pr\u00e9sentent selon des modes d\u2019exposition tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rents le d\u00e9ploiement de l\u2019ensemble du syst\u00e8me.\r\n\r\nLa th\u00e9ologie savante s\u2019enrichit et s\u2019accompagne d\u2019autres dimensions relevant du mode de vie m\u00eame des philosophes n\u00e9oplatoniciens et de leurs pratiques : rituels th\u00e9urgiques, formes diverses de la pi\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des dieux (eusebeia), mais aussi religion personnelle ou encore engagement dans la pol\u00e9mique anti-chr\u00e9tienne.\r\n\r\nL\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des textes eux-m\u00eames a \u00e9t\u00e9 renouvel\u00e9e par une attention accrue port\u00e9e aux genres litt\u00e9raires philosophiques et \u00e0 la dimension pragmatique des \u0153uvres. Les analyses de Pierre Hadot, en particulier, nourries d\u2019une r\u00e9flexion sur les \u00ab jeux de langage \u00bb de Wittgenstein, ont contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 renouveler l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens, ceux de Simplicius notamment, envisag\u00e9s comme des \u0153uvres litt\u00e9raires \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re, avec leur r\u00e9gime sp\u00e9cifique de syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9, leurs r\u00e8gles, leurs codes, leurs finalit\u00e9s pragmatiques propres.\r\n\r\nAu-del\u00e0 de l\u2019\u00e9rudition scientifique et de la puissance conceptuelle qui caract\u00e9rise le discours philosophique \u2013 nourri \u00e0 la fois de la tradition p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticienne et des recherches des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens depuis Plotin et Porphyre \u2013 ces commentaires doivent se comprendre aussi comme des exercices de m\u00e9ditation spirituelle \u00e0 finalit\u00e9 anagogique, que l\u2019auteur pratique \u00e0 la fois pour lui-m\u00eame et pour ses destinataires, auditeurs ou lecteurs. Par leur dimension pragmatique, ils rel\u00e8vent de la vie philosophique (bios) et ne sont plus seulement des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du discours philosophique (logos). [introduction p. 277-279]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ns8nL2OGXc4Xj6K","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":213,"full_name":"Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":500,"section_of":360,"pages":"277-363","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":360,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"De l'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive au Moyen \u00c2ge. \u00c9tudes de logique aristot\u00e9licienne et de philosophie grecque, syriaque, arabe et latine offertes \u00e0 Henri Hugonnard-Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Coda\/Martini2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"La circulation du savoir philosophique \u00e0 travers les traductions du grec au syriaque, du grec \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, du syriaque \u00e0 l\u2019arabe, de l\u2019arabe au latin forme, depuis un si\u00e8cle et plus de recherches savantes, un domaine scientifique \u00e0 part enti\u00e8re. Ce volume r\u00e9unit des sp\u00e9cialistes des disciplines du domaine voulant rendre hommage \u00e0 un coll\u00e8gue dont l\u2019activit\u00e9 a ouvert une voie, Henri Hugonnard-Roche.\r\nSp\u00e9cialiste de la transmission du grec au syriaque de la logique aristot\u00e9licienne, Henri Hugonnard-Roche a montr\u00e9 par ses recherches la continuit\u00e9 entre la philosophie de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive et la pens\u00e9e des chr\u00e9tiens de langue syriaque d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, des savants musulmans \u00e9crivant en arabe, de l\u2019autre. R\u00e9unis souvent par ce que Werner Jaeger avait autrefois d\u00e9sign\u00e9 comme \u00ab la port\u00e9e \u0153cum\u00e9nique de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 classique \u00bb, des musulmans et des chr\u00e9tiens faisant partie d\u2019un cercle philosophique se penchaient, dans la ville de Bagdad au Xe si\u00e8cle, sur le texte d\u2019Aristote. Leur \u00ab Aristote \u00bb \u00e9tait souvent celui de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive : l\u2019Aristote de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Alexandrie que les intellectuels de la Syrie chr\u00e9tienne avaient d\u00e9j\u00e0 rencontr\u00e9 quelque quatre si\u00e8cles auparavant et qu\u2019ils avaient traduit, en m\u00eame temps que Galien, et parfois comment\u00e9. Des noms presque inconnus comme celui de Sergius de Resh\u2019ayna (mort en 536) commencent dans nos manuels \u00e0 en c\u00f4toyer d\u2019autres bien plus connus, comme celui de Bo\u00e8ce, gr\u00e2ce aux recherches de Henri Hugonnard-Roche. Ce volume, par la vari\u00e9t\u00e9 des langues qui s\u2019y entrem\u00ealent, des traditions de pens\u00e9e qu\u2019il fait fusionner, par l\u2019acribie des contributions et le caract\u00e8re novateur des \u00e9ditions de textes et des \u00e9tudes ponctuelles qu\u2019il contient, t\u00e9moigne du rayonnement international du savant auquel il est offert, et de l\u2019effervescence du domaine de recherche auquel il a si grandement contribu\u00e9. [Author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j7haSVMVm5wa9du","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":360,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"\u00c9tudes musulmanes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Science th\u00e9ologique et foi selon le commentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature |
Pages | 44-67 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Wilberding, James |
Translator(s) |
A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a ‘perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless ‘proved philosophically fruitful' — whereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony of Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur prising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also make use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and ‘the philosopher'— that is, ‘the professor — replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1164","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1164,"authors_free":[{"id":1742,"entry_id":1164,"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}},{"id":2081,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2082,"entry_id":1164,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":257,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wilberding, James","free_first_name":"James","free_last_name":"Wilberding","norm_person":{"id":257,"first_name":"James","last_name":"Wilberding","full_name":"Wilberding, James","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143517465","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul","main_title":{"title":"Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul"},"abstract":"A central puzzle of recent scholarship on late Neoplatonism has been to understand how what Richard Sorabji has called a \u2018perfectly crazy position', the thesis of die harmony of Plato and Aristode, nonetheless \u2018proved philosophically fruitful' \u2014 \r\nwhereas, for instance, the same philosophers' perfectly crazy thesis of the harmony of Plato and Homer did not. In this chapter, starting from Hermias' commentary on a passage of the Phaedrus which poses a difficulty for harmonization, I hope to shed some light on what the late Neoplatonists were asserting when they asserted the harmony \r\nof Plato and Aristotle, in general or on some particular issue (here the immortality of soul); on why they were inclined to make such assertions o f harmony, and what they saw themselves as needing to do in order to defend them: and on why,in the process of defending them, they were led to conceptual clarifications which were in some cases of longstanding benefit to the conceptual stoic of philosophy. I will point to a sur\u00ad\r\nprising case of such a conceptual benefit resulting from Neoplatonic interpretations of this Pimdtus passage and its parallels in the Timaeus. While my central example will be from Hermias, the themes I am interested in ate not peculiar to him, and I will also \r\nmake use of other late Neoplatonic authors, especially Proclus. Hermias, and Produs, to recall, were both students of Syrianus;at one point in Hermias' commentary 'our companion Proclus' raises an aporia, and \u2018the philosopher'\u2014 that is, \u2018the professor \u2014 replies (92,6-10 Couvrcur), which seems to imply that the commentary in general was drawn by Hermias from Syrianus lectures. [Introduction, pp. 44 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EgP6g0IaubwrLcL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":257,"full_name":"Wilberding, James","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1164,"section_of":299,"pages":"44-67","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":299,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn\/Wilberding2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Despite Platonism\u2019s unquestioned claim to being one of the most influential movements in the history of philosophy, for a long time the conventional wisdom was that Platonists of late antiquity\u2014or Neoplatonists\u2014were so focused on other-worldly metaphysics that they simply neglected any serious study of the sensible world, which after all is \u2018merely\u2019 an image of the intelligible world, and only recently has this conventional wisdom begun to be dispelled. In fact, precisely because these thinkers did see the sensible world as an image of the intelligible world, they devoted much time and energy to understanding its inner workings. Thus we find Neoplatonists writing on embryology, physiology, meteorology, astronomy, and much else. This volume collects essays by leading international scholars in the field that shed new light on how these thinkers sought to understand and explain nature and natural phenomena. It is thematically divided into two parts, with the first part\u2014\u2018The general metaphysics of Nature\u2019\u2014directed at the explication of central Neoplatonic metaphysical doctrines and their relation to the natural world, and the second part\u2014\u2019Platonic approaches to individual sciences\u2019\u2014showing how these same doctrines play out in individual natural sciences such as elemental physics, geography, and biology. Together these essays show that a serious examination of Neoplatonic natural philosophy has far-reaching consequences for our general understanding of the metaphysics of Platonism, as well as for our evaluation of their place in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eoRoURIG3JhMB6J","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":299,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul"]}
Title | Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Plato’s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum |
Pages | 517-526 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Brisson, Luc , Macé, Arnaud , Renaut, Olivier |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criticizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibility of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle’s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides’ investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius’ opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/47OwUW41KSmtjb0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1549","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1549,"authors_free":[{"id":2706,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null},{"id":2707,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brisson, Luc","free_first_name":"Luc","free_last_name":"Brisson","norm_person":null},{"id":2708,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mac\u00e9, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Mac\u00e9","norm_person":null},{"id":2709,"entry_id":1549,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaut, Olivier","free_first_name":"Olivier","free_last_name":"Renaut","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico","main_title":{"title":"Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"},"abstract":"Simplicius, in Cael. 556,3-560,10 interprets Cael. III 1, 298b14-24, in which Aristotle criti\u00adcizes Parmenides and Melissus, who deny coming-to-be and consider it only an apparent phenomenon. On the one hand, Aristotle asserts that the Eleatics realized that the condition for a science of being can be that the latter refers to ungenerated and immobile, and therefore ontologically stable, objects; on the other hand, at the same time, they do not admit any other essence aside from sensible beings. Aristotle concludes by saying that the Eleatics came to believe that generation is only apparent, and that they proceeded on the assumption of the isomorphism between the stability of the object and the incontrovertibil\u00adity of science itself. All in all, Aristotle has pointed out that the Eleatics mixed physics and metaphysics. Simplicius demonstrates that Aristotle\u2019s criticism is not aimed to refute Parmenides, but to prevent superficial listeners from being misled by the outward aspects of his doctrines, because Parmenides\u2019 investigation is metaphysical and regards the intelligible world. Simplicius quotes Prm. 135b8-c1, where Parmenides, turning towards Socrates, says that whoever denies the theory of ideas, that is the theory that admits eternal entities which exist separately, will be quite at a loss, since there can be no science of the things that always flow, that is of the sensible. This is the reason why Plato, before Simplicius, identifies a theorical continuity between Eleaticsm and his own philosophy, finding in Parmenides a supporter of the onto-epistemological parallelism. In Simplicius\u2019 opinion the historical Parmenides and the platonic Parmenides coincide, so the platonic passage shows that Eleatics were the first philosophers that admitted the principle of the onto-epistemological parallelism. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/47OwUW41KSmtjb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1549,"section_of":1550,"pages":"517-526","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1550,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Plato\u2019s Parmenides: Selected Papers of the XIIth Symposium Platonicum","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brisson2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book contains proceedings of the Symposium Platonicum held in Paris in 2019. The format follows that of its predecessors, in which a selected dialogue (or two) is covered by scholars from diverse research traditions using various interpretative approaches. The published papers are usually shorter notes on specific passages, sometimes growing into longer articles on larger issues, but rarely into a discussion between themselves. The present collection is the largest of its kind (53 papers: 32 in English, 12 in Italian, 4 in German, 3 in French, 2 in Spanish). It examines a particularly difficult dialogue, the Parmenides, from six angles that make up this book\u2019s six thematic sections: (I) the dramatic framework, (II) the influence of earlier philosophers on the Parmenides, (III) Plato\u2019s conception of dialectics, (IV) the critique of the theory of forms, (V) the hypotheses and deductions, and (VI) the influence of the Parmenides on later authors.\r\n\r\nThe Parmenides is a minefield of philosophical questions: how are we to take the dramatic presence of the Eleatics Parmenides and Zeno in terms of the dialogue\u2019s aims and methods? Which of the arguments criticizing the theory of forms, if any, are valid? Do the deductions lead to a genuine impasse or is there some qualified sense in which some of them are productive? And what is the overall purpose of this dialogue: to ridicule the Eleatic monism, to expose the problems surrounding the theory of forms, to solve them, or perhaps to introduce the metaphysics of the One? The reader should not approach this volume in order to find a scholarly consensus on any of these questions, but for the clear formulation of a particular problem, or a promising outline of a solution, or an interesting historical connection to other philosophers offered by some of its contributions.\r\n\r\nA good case of the first is Amber D. Carpenter\u2019s paper. Plato\u2019s Socrates wants forms to be separated from sensibles and ontologically independent of them. Parmenides attacks this position by noticing that the separation of forms and sensibles implies a symmetrical relation since forms are separated from sensibles as much sensibles are separated from forms. But the paper explores a further problem: if being separated from sensibles means being independent of them, then sensibles are equally independent of forms. Even if one gives up separation in order to salvage independence, the problem persists in a weakness captured by Parmenides\u2019 \u2018master-slave\u2019 example, which Carpenter explains as follows: \u2018his being a master does depend on someone else\u2019s being a slave \u2013 and so the master (as Hegel observed) depends on his slave\u2019 (p. 249). Of course Plato, as another paper by Kezhou Liu claims, wants to maintain an asymmetrical relation, but none of the papers in Section IV provide compelling evidence from the Parmenides to counter Carpenter\u2019s argument.\r\n\r\nOther contributions explore how certain mistakes in the Parmenides were solved in other dialogues. For instance, Notomi Noburu examines why the dialogues after the Parmenides abandoned the form of Similarity (homoion) in favor of the form of Sameness (tauton). The answer is that a relation of similarity between forms and sensibles ends up generating a regress. Francisco J. Gonzalez argues that the notion of the third (to triton), which is discussed at 155e\u2013157b (sometimes called the third deduction, usually taken as an appendix to the first two), is pivotal in solving the antinomies of the Parmenides. According to this paper, this notion encompasses any two opposed things and transcends them, thus giving a conceptual basis for various \u2018thirds\u2019 in the Philebus, the Sophist, and the Timaeus. B\u00e9atrice Lienemann explores the predication of forms. This paper adopts Meinwald\u2019s distinction between two types of predication and argues that predication in relation to the thing itself (pros heauto) expresses the essential property of such a thing (e.g. the form of human being is rationality). However, it should not be confused with the necessary properties, such as identity, that belong to all forms. Lienemann then explores the Phaedo and the Sophist to confirm that Plato indeed employs something close to the distinction between the essential and necessary properties.\r\n\r\nAs for the historical part, two papers stand out. Mathilde Br\u00e9mond gives good textual evidence to show that the second part of the Parmenides examines pairs of contradictory claims leading to impossibilities in the way the sophist Gorgias does. In addition, this paper argues that having Gorgias in mind can explain why the second part is neither constructive in its outcomes, nor openly called \u2018dialectics\u2019. The reason is that the argumentation here resembles antilogic. Lloyd P. Gerson\u2019s paper is about the elephant in the room: the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides that is mostly ignored throughout the volume. Gerson shows that Plotinus\u2019 interpretation of the first three hypotheses was not arbitrary, but rather based on a defendable understanding of the One and the need to find a philosophically sound answer to Aristotle\u2019s question \u2018what is ousia?\u2019.\r\n\r\nThe broader value of this volume is that it gives a good representation of the current status quaestionis and provides a number of useful discussions of shorter passages. However, most of its pieces do not formulate a self-standing argument and should be read in conjunction with Cornford\u2019s Plato and Parmenides (1935), Allen\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1983), Meinwald\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (1991), Sayre\u2019s Parmenides\u2019 Lesson (1996), Scolnicov\u2019s Plato\u2019s Parmenides (2003), Rickless\u2019 Plato\u2019s Forms in Transition (2006), and Gill\u2019s Philosophos (2012): the papers assume close familiarity with them. Finally, this volume needed more careful editing: it contains different treatments of Greek (e.g. pp. 183-191 use transliterations, while pp. 193-200 do not); there are typos and missing characters in the text and titles (e.g. \u2018Plato\u2019 Parmenides\u2019 on p. 10) and missing references in the bibliography (e.g. Helmig 2007 and Migliori 2000 from p. 63).","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BAdPSglZoxI7r9D","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1550,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicio, in Cael. 556, 3-560, 10, a margine di Platone, Prm. 135b8-c1. Prolegomeni a una genealogia del parallelism onto-epistemologico"]}
Title | Simplicios, commentateur représentatif d’Aristote dans le néoplatonisme tardif |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978 |
Pages | 250 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Vamvoukakis, Nicolas |
Editor(s) | Theodōrakopulos, Iōannēs N. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UItMYMORGj0gHKz |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1460","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1460,"authors_free":[{"id":2524,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":344,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","free_first_name":"Nicolas","free_last_name":"Vamvoukakis","norm_person":{"id":344,"first_name":"Nicolas","last_name":"Vamvoukakis","full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2525,"entry_id":1460,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":514,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos, I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_first_name":"I\u014dann\u0113s N.","free_last_name":"Theod\u014drakopulos,","norm_person":{"id":514,"first_name":" Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","last_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos","full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117302619","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif","main_title":{"title":"Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UItMYMORGj0gHKz","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":344,"full_name":"Vamvoukakis, Nicolas","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":514,"full_name":"Theodo\u0304rakopoulos, Io\u0304anne\u0304s Nikolaou ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1460,"section_of":1459,"pages":"250","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1459,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle, Thessaloniki August 7-14 1978","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Theod\u014drakopulos1981","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1981","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/I0bn1qB2TUZcu8q","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1459,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"Athe\u0304na : Ministry of Culture and Sciences","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicios, commentateur repr\u00e9sentatif d\u2019Aristote dans le n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Encyclopédie philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques |
Pages | 319-321 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Françoise |
Editor(s) | Jacob, André , Mattéi, Jean-François |
Translator(s) |
Ce néoplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe païen de l’Antiquité tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'Épictète ont été largement exploités comme une mine de renseignements sur l’histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les œuvres des présocratiques, des péripatéticiens et des stoïciens. Toutefois, à l’exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'Épictète, ces œuvres n’ont pas, jusqu’ici, été étudiées dans leur ensemble d’une manière permettant de connaître le système philosophique de Simplicius lui-même dans ses détails. Des recherches récentes ont montré que, contrairement à ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l’ensemble de son œuvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son maître Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait développé le plus riche des systèmes néoplatoniciens, marqué par une différenciation ontologique poussée à l’extrême. Simplicius ne nous a laissé aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu’il a suivi à Alexandrie l’enseignement d’Ammonius, fils d’Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, à un lieu ou des lieux non spécifiés, l’enseignement de Damascius. Grâce à un ensemble d’autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu’à quelques indices contenus dans ses propres œuvres, nous pouvons compléter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est né en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a été élève d’Ammonius à Alexandrie avant 517 de notre ère et s’est retrouvé en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son maître), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diogène et Isidore de Gaza, à une date difficile à déterminer. On peut supposer un lien entre le séjour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l’interdiction, édictée par Justinien en 529, d’enseigner la philosophie et le droit à Athènes, bien qu’aucune source ne le précise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s’installer à Harrân (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l’école néoplatonicienne de cette ville, située en territoire byzantin. C’est là qu’il composa tous ses commentaires. Notons enfin que l’authenticité du Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d’Aristote a été mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le traité de Jamblique « Sur la secte de Pythagore » est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote et sur le premier livre des Éléments d’Euclide. Œuvres principales de Simplicius : Commentaire sur le traité Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533. Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538. Commentaire aux Catégories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538. Commentaire sur le traité De l'âme d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538. Étant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un résumé pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications générales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concrètes de la sképsis aux thèses de la logique, de la physique et de l’éthique. [the entire article] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"694","_score":null,"_source":{"id":694,"authors_free":[{"id":1032,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":141,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Franc\u0327oise ","free_first_name":"Franc\u0327oise ","free_last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","norm_person":{"id":141,"first_name":"Francoise ","last_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky","full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1033,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":140,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Jacob","norm_person":{"id":140,"first_name":"Jacob","last_name":"Andr\u00e9 ","full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1024554724","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1978,"entry_id":694,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":142,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","norm_person":{"id":142,"first_name":"Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","last_name":"Matt\u00e9i","full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666606X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Ce n\u00e9oplatonicien est le dernier grand philosophe pa\u00efen de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive. Ses grands commentaires sur Aristote et sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te ont \u00e9t\u00e9 largement exploit\u00e9s comme une mine de renseignements sur l\u2019histoire de la philosophie antique, par exemple sur les \u0153uvres des pr\u00e9socratiques, des p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens et des sto\u00efciens. Toutefois, \u00e0 l\u2019exception du commentaire sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, ces \u0153uvres n\u2019ont pas, jusqu\u2019ici, \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9tudi\u00e9es dans leur ensemble d\u2019une mani\u00e8re permettant de conna\u00eetre le syst\u00e8me philosophique de Simplicius lui-m\u00eame dans ses d\u00e9tails.\r\n\r\nDes recherches r\u00e9centes ont montr\u00e9 que, contrairement \u00e0 ce que pensait encore K. Praechter, Simplicius est, dans l\u2019ensemble de son \u0153uvre, largement tributaire des doctrines philosophiques de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. Ce dernier, en critiquant Proclus, avait d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 le plus riche des syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, marqu\u00e9 par une diff\u00e9renciation ontologique pouss\u00e9e \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00eame.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne nous a laiss\u00e9 aucune indication concernant sa patrie, le lieu ou la date de sa naissance. Il nous informe seulement qu\u2019il a suivi \u00e0 Alexandrie l\u2019enseignement d\u2019Ammonius, fils d\u2019Hermias et disciple de Proclus, et, \u00e0 un lieu ou des lieux non sp\u00e9cifi\u00e9s, l\u2019enseignement de Damascius. Gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 un ensemble d\u2019autres sources, grecques et arabes, ainsi qu\u2019\u00e0 quelques indices contenus dans ses propres \u0153uvres, nous pouvons compl\u00e9ter sa biographie comme suit : Simplicius est n\u00e9 en Cilicie, en Asie Mineure. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9l\u00e8ve d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie avant 517 de notre \u00e8re et s\u2019est retrouv\u00e9 en Perse en 532 avec les philosophes Damascius (son ma\u00eetre), Eulamios, Priscien, Hermias, Diog\u00e8ne et Isidore de Gaza, \u00e0 une date difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9terminer.\r\n\r\nOn peut supposer un lien entre le s\u00e9jour des philosophes grecs en Perse et l\u2019interdiction, \u00e9dict\u00e9e par Justinien en 529, d\u2019enseigner la philosophie et le droit \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes, bien qu\u2019aucune source ne le pr\u00e9cise. Simplicius quitta la Perse en 532, en compagnie des autres philosophes, pour s\u2019installer \u00e0 Harr\u00e2n (Carrhae) et y enseigner dans l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de cette ville, situ\u00e9e en territoire byzantin. C\u2019est l\u00e0 qu\u2019il composa tous ses commentaires.\r\n\r\nNotons enfin que l\u2019authenticit\u00e9 du Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d\u2019Aristote a \u00e9t\u00e9 mise en doute par F. Bossier et C. Steel (cf. compte rendu de P. Hadot). Le Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 de Jamblique \u00ab Sur la secte de Pythagore \u00bb est perdu, et il ne reste que quelques fragments des commentaires sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote et sur le premier livre des \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide.\r\n\r\n\u0152uvres principales de Simplicius :\r\n\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Aristotelous Peri ouranou), vers 533.\r\n Commentaire sur la Physique d'Aristote (Eis to proton tes Aristotelous Phusikes akroaseos), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote (Hupomnema eis tas Kategorias tou Aristotelous), vers 538.\r\n Commentaire sur le trait\u00e9 De l'\u00e2me d'Aristote (Eis to proton tou Peri psuches Aristotelous hupomnema), vers 538.\r\n\r\n\u00c9tant impossible de donner, en quelques lignes, un r\u00e9sum\u00e9 pertinent pour chacun de ces volumineux commentaires, il est instructif de fournir quelques explications g\u00e9n\u00e9rales sur leur fonction, leur structure et leur tendance philosophique. Ces commentaires combinent des applications concr\u00e8tes de la sk\u00e9psis aux th\u00e8ses de la logique, de la physique et de l\u2019\u00e9thique. [the entire article]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QFpZ6wLm1XbKKRr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":141,"full_name":"Caujolle-Zaslawsky, Francoise ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":140,"full_name":"Jacob, Andr\u00e9 ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":142,"full_name":"Matt\u00e9i, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":694,"section_of":361,"pages":"319-321","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":361,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Encyclop\u00e9die philosophique universelle: Les oeuvres philosophiques","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mattei1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwmYyz8HeXbVYFD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":361,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses Universitaires de France","series":"","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1967 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Pages | 448-449 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lloyd, Antony C. |
Editor(s) | Edwards, Paul |
Translator(s) |
"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen tator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius and in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was closed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he returned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His surviving commentaries (on Aristotle’s Categories, Physics, De Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more polemic than would have been suitable for students. His chief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies in his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient philosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla tonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School of the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases but follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of the distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be tween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated (remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- ized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- 94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by which he carries out the task that dominates his work, to reconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for instance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved mover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. According to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the primary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or proceeding, kind. Simplicius’ interpretation of the De Anima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a valid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented by a metaphysical account of the “separate” intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- ists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result is more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, with Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi fied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here to Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo tion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex amined and were already beginning to suggest relational definitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus on the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, Diels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original views of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle only by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen tary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind of metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things in motion depends on the distinction already referred to be tween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter aspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of succession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic Epictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral philosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi cism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is commonplace for the period. However, it does contain a semipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or metaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been claimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as in the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the One, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but dubiously supports the claim." [the whole entry] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":393,"authors_free":[{"id":516,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":465,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","free_first_name":"Antony C.","free_last_name":"Lloyd","norm_person":{"id":465,"first_name":"Antony C.","last_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1052318118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":517,"entry_id":393,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":237,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Edwards, Paul","free_first_name":"Paul","free_last_name":"Edwards","norm_person":{"id":237,"first_name":"Paul","last_name":"Edwards","full_name":"Edwards, Paul","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"\"SIMPLICIUS, sixth-century Neoplatonist and commen\u00ad\r\ntator on Aristotle, studied in Alexandria under Ammonius \r\nand in Athens under Damascius. The School at Athens was \r\nclosed in 529, and Simplicius withdrew to Persia. When he \r\nreturned, his paganism barred him from lecturing. His \r\nsurviving commentaries (on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Physics, \r\nDe Caelo, and De Anima) are both more learned and more \r\npolemic than would have been suitable for students. His \r\nchief importance in the history of philosophy probably lies \r\nin his being a source of our knowledge of other ancient \r\nphilosophers, notably the pre-Socratics.Simplicius takes for granted the metaphysics of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism as it had been systematized in the Athenian School \r\nof the fifth century. He accepts the usual three hypostases \r\nbut follows Iamblichus and Damascius in making much of \r\nthe distinction between each hypostasis and, indeed, be\u00ad\r\ntween each self-subsistent reality as it is undifferentiated \r\n(remaining in the One) and as it is differentiated or plural- \r\nized (proceeding). (See, for example, In De Caelo, pp. 93- \r\n94, Heiberg.) It is one of the concepts or devices by \r\nwhich he carries out the task that dominates his work, to \r\nreconcile Plato and Aristotle. They appear to disagree, for \r\ninstance, about motion: a self-moving or an unmoved \r\nmover, the motion or immobility of reason, and so on. \r\nAccording to Simplicius, Plato is usually writing of the \r\nprimary kind of motion, and Aristotle of the secondary, or \r\nproceeding, kind. Simplicius\u2019 interpretation of the De \r\nAnima is based on that of Iamblichus, which took it as a \r\nvalid description of the embodied soul, to be supplemented \r\nby a metaphysical account of the \u201cseparate\u201d intellectIn natural philosophy, Simplicius, like other Neoplaton- \r\nists, is more ready to criticize Aristotle, so that the result\r\nis more often a compromise, rather than a reconciliation, \r\nwith Plato. Aristotelian matter had long been identi\u00ad\r\nfied with Plato's not-being; Simplicius has little to add here \r\nto Plotinus and Porphyry. But the problems of space, mo\u00ad\r\ntion, place, and allied concepts had repeatedly been ex\u00ad\r\namined and were already beginning to suggest relational \r\ndefinitions foreign to Aristotle's physics. In an excursus \r\non the notion of place (In Physica, VoL XI, pp. 601-645, \r\nDiels) Simplicius describes some interesting and original \r\nviews of Darnascius, which he reconciles with Aristotle \r\nonly by implying, implausibly, that the two are complemen\u00ad\r\ntary, A similar but less scientific treatment of time as a kind \r\nof metaphysical cause of the existence of motion and things \r\nin motion depends on the distinction already referred to be\u00ad\r\ntween remaining in the One and proceeding; the latter \r\naspect accounts for flowing time, which is the measure of \r\nsuccession,Simplicius also wrote an extant commentary on the Stoic \r\nEpictetus' Enchiridion (or handbook of ethics). In moral \r\nphilosophy the Neoplafconists borrowed much from Stoi\u00ad\r\ncism, and while well expressed, most of the commentary is \r\ncommonplace for the period. However, it does contain a \r\nsemipopular presentation of Neoplatonic theology or \r\nmetaphysics (pp. 95-101, Diibner), and this has been \r\nclaimed as a survival of Alexandrian Platonism in which (as \r\nin the Middle Academy) the highest hypostasis is not the \r\nOne, but Intellect, The text i% not unambiguous but \r\ndubiously supports the claim.\" [the whole entry]","btype":2,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EDqpmOHmXAWfsyj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":465,"full_name":"Lloyd, Antony C.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":237,"full_name":"Edwards, Paul","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":393,"section_of":1371,"pages":"448-449","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1371,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edwards1967","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1967","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The first English-language reference of its kind, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy was hailed as \"a remarkable and unique work\" (Saturday Review) that contained \"the international who's who of philosophy and cultural history\" (Library Journal). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9TYFlO2oFqfGwvz","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1371,"pubplace":"London, New York","publisher":"Crowell-Collier Publishing Company","series":"","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | The Oxford Classical Dictionary |
Pages | 1409-1410 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Spawforth, Antony , Hornblower, Simon |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad. Simplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle’s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium. At the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus. Commentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. Dübner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes mésopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1386,"authors_free":[{"id":2139,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2142,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":335,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spawforth, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Spawforth","norm_person":{"id":335,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Spawforth","full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131894757","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2143,"entry_id":1386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":334,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hornblower, Simon","free_first_name":"Simon","free_last_name":"Hornblower","norm_person":{"id":334,"first_name":"Simon","last_name":"Hornblower","full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135771676","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius, 6th-cent. AD Neoplatonist (see Neoplatonism) and one of seven philosophers who left Athens for Ctesiphon after Justinian closed the Athenian Neoplatonist school in 529. He probably wrote all his commentaries after 532, when it was safe for the philosophers to leave Ctesiphon. Recent evidence suggests that he may have settled at Harran (ancient Carrhae) in present-day Turkey, from where Platonism was brought back in the 9th cent. to Baghdad.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was taught by Ammonius (2) in Alexandria and by Damascius, head of the Athenian school. He wrote commentaries, all extant, on Aristotle's De caelo, Physics, and Categories (in that order), and on Epictetus' Manual, among other works. A commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De anima is of disputed authorship. His are the fullest of all Aristotle commentaries, recording debates on Aristotle from the preceding 850 years and embedding many fragments from the entire millennium.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, Simplicius gave his own views on many topics, including place, time, and matter. His commentaries express the revulsion of a devout Neoplatonist for Christianity and for its arch-philosophical defender, Philoponus.\r\n\r\nCommentary in Aristotelium Graeca 7-11 (1882-1907), partly trans. in R. Sorabji (ed.), The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (1987- ); In Ench. Epict., ed. D\u00fcbner (1840), trans. G. Stanhope (1694). I. Hadot (ed.), Simplicius, sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie (1987); M. Tardieu, Coutumes m\u00e9sopotamiennes (1991); RE3A 1 (1927). R. R. K. S. [the entire entry]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vzddeyFIMrhk1Ab","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":335,"full_name":"Spawforth, Antony","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":334,"full_name":"Hornblower, Simon","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1386,"section_of":1387,"pages":"1409-1410","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1387,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Classical Dictionary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hornblower1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"For more than half a century, the Oxford Classical Dictionary has been the unrivaled one-volume reference work on the Greco-Roman world. Whether one is interested in literature or art, philosophy or law, mythology or science, intimate details of daily life or broad cultural and historical trends, the OCD is the first place to turn for clear, authoritative information on all aspects of ancient culture.\r\n\r\nNow comes the Fourth Edition of this redoubtable resource, thoroughly revised and updated, with numerous new entries and two new focus areas (on reception and anthropology). Here, in over six thousand entries ranging from long articles to brief identifications, readers can find information on virtually any topic of interest--athletics, bee-keeping, botany, magic, religious rites, postal service, slavery, navigation, and the reckoning of time. The Oxford Classical Dictionary profiles every major figure of Greece and Rome, from Homer and Virgil to Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. Readers will find entries on mythological and legendary figures, on major cities, famous buildings, and important geographical landmarks, and on legal, rhetorical, literary, and political terms and concepts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FsDwLlWXlqssLoo","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1387,"pubplace":"Oxford \u2013 New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"3","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1975 |
Published in | Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS |
Pages | 440-443 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | Gillispie, Charles Coulston |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics. Very little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus. Simplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of "the One." Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius’ circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine. There are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite. Simplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27). Apparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine. As a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius’ constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32). Simplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist—which is clearly impossible. Simplicius’ notion of “infinite” is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1393","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1393,"authors_free":[{"id":2163,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2165,"entry_id":1393,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":354,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","free_first_name":"Charles Coulston","free_last_name":"Gillispie","norm_person":{"id":354,"first_name":"Charles Coulston","last_name":"Gillispie","full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117710539","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius was one of the most famous representatives of Neoplatonism in the sixth century. An outstanding scholar, he was the author of extensive commentaries on Aristotle that contain much valuable information on previous Greek philosophy, including the pre-Socratics.\r\n\r\nVery little is known of his life. According to Agathias (History, 11,30,3), he was born in Cilicia. He received his first philosophical education in Alexandria at the school of Ammonius Hermiae, the author of a large commentary on the Peri Hermeneias and on some other logical, physical, and metaphysical treatises of Aristotle. These works strongly influenced not only the commentaries of Simplicius but also those written by the philosophers of the Alexandrian School: Asclepius, Philoponus, and Olympiodorus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also studied philosophy at Athens in the school of Damascius, the author of Problems and Solutions About the First Principles, known for his doctrine of the Ineffable First Principle. According to Damascius, no name is capable of expressing adequately the nature of that Principle, not even the Plotinian name of \"the One.\" Damascius was the last pagan Neoplatonist in the unbroken succession of the Athenian school, where he was teaching when Justinian closed it in 529. Simplicius, who at that time was a member of Damascius\u2019 circle, left Athens with him and five other philosophers and moved to Persia (531-532). Their exile was only temporary, for they returned to the empire after the treaty of peace between the Byzantines and the Persians (533). According to Agathias (History, 11,31,4), the terms of the treaty would have guaranteed to the philosophers full security in their own environment: they were not to be compelled to accept anything against their personal conviction, and they were never to be prevented from living according to their own philosophical doctrine.\r\n\r\nThere are grounds for supposing that Simplicius settled in Athens after returning from Persia. Presumably, he was not allowed to deliver public lectures and thus could devote all his time to research and writing. Hence his commentaries are not related to any teaching activity; rather, they show the character of written expositions that carefully analyze the Aristotelian text and interpret it in the light of the whole history of Greek philosophy. Simplicius always endeavored to harmonize and reconcile Plato and Aristotle by reducing the differences between them to a question of vocabulary, point of view, or even misunderstanding of some Platonic theories by the Stagirite.\r\n\r\nSimplicius was not the first to take this approach. According to W. Jaeger, this trend can be traced to Posidonius and to Neoplatonic philosophy in general. The same method was certainly used by Ammonius, who always attempted to reduce the opposition between Plato and Aristotle to different viewpoints. For example, in dealing with Aristotle\u2019s criticism of the theory of Ideas, Ammonius believed this criticism to concern not the authentic doctrine of Plato, but rather the opinion of some philosophers who attributed to the Ideas an independent subsistence, separate from the Intellect of the Demiurge (Asclepius, In Metaphysicorum, 69,24-27; 73,27).\r\n\r\nApparently, Simplicius was persuaded that this approach was in agreement with the attitude of the philopatheis and that it uncovered the true meaning of philosophical doctrines. At first glance, he said, some theories seem to be quite contradictory, but a more accurate inquiry shows them to be reconcilable (In de Caelo, 159,3-9). Moreover, in explaining a philosophical text, one should not be biased for or against its author. Hence Simplicius opposed the method of Alexander, who from the beginning is suspicious of Plato in the same way that others are inspired with prejudice against Aristotle (In de Caelo, 297,1-4). Since agreement on an opinion, even a prephilosophical one, has often been considered a criterion of truth, Aristotle and the Stoics frequently used the argument of universal agreement. Therefore, having to cope with the increasing influence of Christianity, late Neoplatonic philosophers wanted to argue against the presumed disaccord between the main representatives of Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, in order to enhance their own doctrine. As a Christian, Philoponus did not have the same motives for harmonizing Plato and Aristotle; he firmly opposed attempts to reconcile them and called this interpretation a kind of mythology. Aristotle, he held, did not argue against those who misunderstood Plato but against the authentic Platonic doctrine.\r\n\r\nAs a commentator, Simplicius did not overestimate his own contributions but was quite aware of his debt to other philosophers, especially to Alexander, Iamblichus, and Porphyry (In Categorias, 3,10-13). He did not hesitate to call his own commentaries a mere introduction to the writings of these famous masters (In Categorias, 3,13-17), nor did he cling fanatically to his own interpretations; he was happy to exchange them for better explanations (In Categorias, 350,8-9). On the other hand, the work of a commentator is far from being a neutral undertaking or a question of mere erudition; it is chiefly an opportunity to become more familiar with the text under consideration and to elucidate some intricate passages (In Enchiridion, Praefatio, 2,24-29; In de Caelo, 102,15; 166,14-16; In Categorias, 3,4-6). Hence Simplicius\u2019 constant concern to obtain reliable documents and to check the historical value of this information, as when he verified the information provided by Alexander about the squaring of the circle according to Hippocrates of Chios (In Physicorum, 60,22-68, 32).\r\n\r\nSimplicius adhered to the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the world, as a theory that fits perfectly into the Neoplatonic ontology insofar as the eternal movement of the heavens is a necessary link between the pure eternity of the intelligible reality and the temporal character of material beings. With respect to this question, Simplicius strongly opposed Philoponus, who asserted the beginning of the world through divine creation. Philoponus, however, did not argue as a Christian, nor did he base his refutation of the Aristotelian doctrine on arguments drawn from his Christian faith. According to him, God is the principle of whatever exists: if time is infinite, nothing may ever come to be, because an infinite number of conditions of possibility are to be fulfilled before anything could begin to exist\u2014which is clearly impossible. Simplicius\u2019 notion of \u201cinfinite\u201d is different; it does not mean an infinity existing at once, but a possibility of transcending any boundary. Consequently, the conception of time exposed by both authors is not the same. Simplicius professed a cyclical conception; Philoponus adhered to a linear view without regular return of the same events. Philoponus also substantiated divine creation in time, without preexisting matter; whereas Simplicius maintained that although heaven, the first and highest corporeal reality, is totally dependent upon God, it has never come to exist; it must be eternal because it springs immediately from God. [introduction p. 440-441]","btype":2,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dKqS8TkSYL9fWNO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":354,"full_name":"Gillispie, Charles Coulston","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1393,"section_of":1394,"pages":"440-443","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1394,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Volume XII: IBN RUSHD - JEAN-SERVAIS STAS","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1975","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pt8Q1J4Rc3TbiFs","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1394,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Charles Scriber\u2019s Sons","series":"","volume":"XII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1963 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung |
Pages | 909-915 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zeller, Eduard |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines großen Fleißes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein für uns eine unschätzbare Fundgrube von Bruchstücken älterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten über dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgfältige und meist verständige Erklärung des Textes. Aber als Philosoph hält sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gläubiger Verehrer der chaldäischen Göttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben möchte. In der Sache müssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen übereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen. Von dieser Voraussetzung aus weiß Simplicius das Einverständnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene Übereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koinaí phýseis) bedingt sei. Der Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun würde. Auch Aristoteles’ Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gemünzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, verträgt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer höheren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei. Ähnlich verfährt Simplicius überhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei großen philosophischen Autoritäten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren lässt er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Maße ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einwürfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben. Er folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorgänger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl großenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigentümliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat für ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgeführten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl möglich war. Auch seine ausführliche Erörterung über den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zusätze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenwärtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so nähert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache. Um schließlich noch seine Ansicht über den Nous zu erwähnen, so bemüht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verhältnis des Niedrigeren zum Höheren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, über die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten. Er ist ein höchst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein bloßer Nachtreter der Früheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/c2H67ey2uKL9hou |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1450,"authors_free":[{"id":2436,"entry_id":1450,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":413,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeller, Eduard","free_first_name":"Eduard","free_last_name":"Zeller","norm_person":{"id":413,"first_name":"Eduard","last_name":"Zeller,","full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118636383","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Cilicier | Simplicius, welcher zuerst den Ammonius, dann den Damascius zum Lehrer gehabt hatte. Die Kommentare dieses Philosophen sind das Werk eines gro\u00dfen Flei\u00dfes und einer umfassenden Gelehrsamkeit; sie bilden nicht allein f\u00fcr uns eine unsch\u00e4tzbare Fundgrube von Bruchst\u00fccken \u00e4lterer Philosophen und von Nachrichten \u00fcber dieselben, sondern sie geben auch, trotz der Umdeutungen, von denen kein neuplatonischer Kommentar frei ist, eine sorgf\u00e4ltige und meist verst\u00e4ndige Erkl\u00e4rung des Textes.\r\n\r\nAber als Philosoph h\u00e4lt sich Simplicius ganz an seine Lehrer, ohne dass er zur Berichtigung oder Fortbildung ihrer Ergebnisse einen erheblichen Versuch machte. Ein unbedingter Bewunderer Platos, ein gl\u00e4ubiger Verehrer der chald\u00e4ischen G\u00f6ttersprache und des Orpheus, hat er zugleich von Aristoteles eine viel zu hohe Meinung, als dass er irgendeinen erheblichen Widerspruch zwischen ihm und Plato zugeben m\u00f6chte. In der Sache m\u00fcssen ja beide in allem Wesentlichen \u00fcbereinstimmen, wenn sie auch in den Worten sich dann und wann widersprechen.\r\n\r\nVon dieser Voraussetzung aus wei\u00df Simplicius das Einverst\u00e4ndnis des Aristoteles mit Plato auch da noch zu entdecken, wo jener gegen diesen in Wahrheit laute Einrede erhoben hat. So soll z. B. in Betreff der allgemeinen Begriffe zwischen beiden vollkommene \u00dcbereinstimmung bestehen: Plato, sagt Simplicius, unterscheide zwar die allgemeinen Begriffe von den Einzelwesen, aber er lege ihnen kein abgesondertes Dasein bei; Aristoteles andererseits komme es nicht in den Sinn, zu bestreiten, dass das Einzelne durch das Allgemeine (koina\u00ed ph\u00fdseis) bedingt sei.\r\n\r\nDer Ideenlehre soll Aristoteles nur scheinbar widersprechen: Er nehme ja auch Ursachen aller Dinge in Gott an, er wolle nur nicht, dass diese mit denselben Namen bezeichnet werden wie die Dinge. Ebenso wenig sollen die beiden Philosophen hinsichtlich der Materie verschiedener Ansicht sein, und die Stelle, in der Aristoteles den Unterschied seiner Bestimmungen von den platonischen auseinandersetzt, soll nicht auf die platonische Lehre selbst gehen, weil sie dieser, wie Simplicius glaubt, Unrecht tun w\u00fcrde.\r\n\r\nAuch Aristoteles\u2019 Einwendungen gegen die Annahme, dass der Himmel durch die Seele in Bewegung gesetzt werde, sollen nicht auf Plato gem\u00fcnzt sein; dass die Seele nach Aristoteles unbewegt ist, nach Plato sich selbst bewegt, soll das Gleiche bedeuten; dass Plato die Welt geworden nennt, Aristoteles ungeworden, vertr\u00e4gt sich ganz gut miteinander: Jener behauptet, sie sei aus einer h\u00f6heren Ursache hervorgegangen, dieser leugnet, dass sie in der Zeit entstanden sei.\r\n\r\n\u00c4hnlich verf\u00e4hrt Simplicius \u00fcberhaupt, um den Widerstreit seiner zwei gro\u00dfen philosophischen Autorit\u00e4ten zu beseitigen: Wo ein solcher vorzuliegen scheint, darf Aristoteles immer nur eine unrichtige und fassbare Auffassung Platos, nicht seine eigentliche Meinung angreifen. Selbst der aristotelischen Kritik pythagoreischer und parmenideischer Lehren l\u00e4sst er die gleiche Entschuldigung zugutekommen; und wurden einmal die alten Philosophen in solchem Ma\u00dfe ins Neuplatonische umgedeutet, wie er es gewohnt ist, so konnte er allerdings den Einw\u00fcrfen des Aristoteles gegen sie nicht Recht geben.\r\n\r\nEr folgt hier durchaus der Richtung, welche ihm seine Vorg\u00e4nger bezeichnet hatten, und auch im Einzelnen wohl gro\u00dfenteils den Annahmen seiner Lehrer. Auch sonst ist kaum etwas Eigent\u00fcmliches bei ihm zu finden. Er wiederholt und verteidigt die Lehren seiner Schule, aber er hat f\u00fcr ihre Weiterbildung nichts Erhebliches geleistet, wie diese auch bei einem schon so lange bestehenden und nach allen Seiten hin ausgef\u00fchrten System ohne Umbau des Ganzen nicht wohl m\u00f6glich war.\r\n\r\nAuch seine ausf\u00fchrliche Er\u00f6rterung \u00fcber den Raum ergibt nur unerhebliche Zus\u00e4tze zu den Bestimmungen des Damascius; und wenn er hinsichtlich der Zeit der von diesem versuchten Annahme einer in jedem Augenblick ganz gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeit mit Recht widerspricht, so n\u00e4hert er sich ihr doch wieder durch eine kaum weniger unklare Unterscheidung zwischen der urbildlichen und der aus ihr abgeleiteten Zeit: Jene soll den Dingen, die in der Zeit sind, als die Ursache ihres Zeitlebens vorangehen, welche den Verlauf desselben messe und ordne und ihn ebendamit zu einem zeitlichen mache.\r\n\r\nUm schlie\u00dflich noch seine Ansicht \u00fcber den Nous zu erw\u00e4hnen, so bem\u00fcht er sich zwar, die verschiedenen Beziehungen, in denen dieser bei Aristoteles vorkommt, mittels der neuplatonischen Lehre vom Verh\u00e4ltnis des Niedrigeren zum H\u00f6heren begreiflich zu machen; doch gelingt es ihm nicht, \u00fcber die an sich dunkle Sache dadurch ein neues Licht zu verbreiten.\r\n\r\nEr ist ein h\u00f6chst achtungswerter Gelehrter, er ist auch als Philosoph kein blo\u00dfer Nachtreter der Fr\u00fcheren, aber er ist doch nicht mehr als der denkende Bearbeiter einer gegebenen und in allen wesentlichen Beziehungen zu ihrem Abschluss gekommenen Lehre. [the entire entry p. 910-914]","btype":2,"date":"1963","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/c2H67ey2uKL9hou","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":413,"full_name":"Zeller, Eduard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1450,"section_of":207,"pages":"909-915","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":207,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zeller1903","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1903","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1903","abstract":"Das erstmals zwischen 1844 und 1852 erschienene Werk \u203aDie Philosophie der Griechen. Eine Untersuchung \u00fcber Charakter, Gang und Hauptmomente ihrer Entwicklung\u2039 gilt als eine der monumentalsten philosophischen Studien der Geschichte. In nie wieder erreichter Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit und Geschlossenheit beschreibt Eduard Zeller hier den Entwicklungsgang der Philosophie Griechenlands. Als \u00dcbersichts- und Grundlagenwerk ist \u203aDer Zeller\u2039 auch heute noch von gro\u00dfer Bedeutung. Hervorhebenswert an der Arbeit Eduard Zellers ist vor allem, dass er eine akribische Quellenarbeit mit systematisch-philosophischem Interesse verbindet. Obwohl ein klassischer Gelehrter des 19. Jahrhunderts, philosophiert er in modernem wissenschaftlichen Sinne. Zeller, der den Begriff \u203aErkenntnistheorie\u2039 \u00fcberhaupt erst in die philosophische Diskussion eingef\u00fchrt hat, hat mit der \u203aPhilosophie der Griechen\u2039 ein Werk geschaffen, dessen Bedeutung auch im 21. Jahrhundert unbestritten ist. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wqWO03gtyLISydF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":207,"pubplace":"Leipzig","publisher":"Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft","series":"","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see §5). Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714), Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker. Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia. One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1468","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1468,"authors_free":[{"id":2541,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","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}},{"id":2542,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480\u2013560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius\u2019 works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that \u201cthe ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted\u201d (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius\u2019 works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see \u00a75).\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),\r\n\r\n Simplicius\u2019 importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.\r\n\r\nNineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores\/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels\u2019 edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.\r\n\r\nOne of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius\u2019 writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors\u2014but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/archives\/sum2020\/entries\/simplicius\/","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1468,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}
Title | Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8) |
Pages | 788-791 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Craig, Edward |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius’ exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy ever since. [Author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"717","_score":null,"_source":{"id":717,"authors_free":[{"id":1066,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1067,"entry_id":717,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":470,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Craig, Edward","free_first_name":"Edward","free_last_name":"Craig","norm_person":{"id":470,"first_name":"Edward","last_name":"Craig","full_name":"Craig, Edward","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1079630643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia, a Greek Neoplatonic philosopher and polymath, lived in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He is the author of the most learned commentaries on Aristotle produced in antiquity, works which rest upon the accumulated accomplishments of ancient Greek philosophy and science. In them he gives numerous illuminating references and explanations that not only lead to a fuller understanding of Aristotle, but also allow one to reconstruct the history of the interpretation and criticism of Aristotelian doctrines in antiquity. The main principle that guides Simplicius\u2019 exegesis is the conviction that most Greek philosophers, including some Presocratics, can be brought into agreement with Neoplatonism. Simplicius adduces copious quotations to prove his point, thereby supplying us with substantial fragments from lost works of thinkers like Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Eudemus and the Stoics. A devout pagan, Simplicius sought to defend traditional Greek religion and philosophy against the oppressive dominance of Christianity. His commentaries have influenced the reception and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy ever since. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XZqDDiQkn8uEw2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":470,"full_name":"Craig, Edward","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":717,"section_of":716,"pages":"788-791","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":716,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 8)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Edward1998","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1998","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online (REP Online) is the largest and most comprehensive resource available for all those involved in the study of philosophy. It is a trusted source of quality information, providing access to over 2,800 articles that have been edited for level and consistency by a team of renowned subject experts.\u00a0\r\nRegularly updated with new and revised articles it is the ideal entry point for further discovery and research, clearly organised and with over 25,000 cross-references linking themes, concepts and philosophers. It is also an ideal reference source for those in subjects related to philosophy, such as politics, psychology, economics, anthropology, religion and literature. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hd71FhU5RvTpqmA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":716,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius (fl. first half of 6th century AD)"]}
Title | Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 441-456 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"]}
Title | Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Aspects of Avicenna |
Pages | 73-130 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Stone, Abraham D. |
Editor(s) | Wisnovsky, Robert |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle’s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7—a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all—and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna’s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa’ II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa’, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle. Both Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology—“corporeal form,” “indeterminate dimensions,” “deviation”—that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight). This resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail. The abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form. Simplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form “deviates” from its intelligible archetype—i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter. Both solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius’ solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna’s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance. [conclusion p. 113-114] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1425","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1425,"authors_free":[{"id":2236,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":409,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","free_first_name":" Abraham D.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":409,"first_name":" Abraham D.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2449,"entry_id":1425,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":483,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","free_first_name":"Robert","free_last_name":"Wisnovsky","norm_person":{"id":483,"first_name":"Robert","last_name":"Wisnovsky","full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance"},"abstract":"Simplicius and Avicenna face the same difficult problems, and both reach interpretatively and conceptually radical solutions. The interpretative radicalness is reflected in the fact that their discussions of this issue are unusually disengaged from Aristotle\u2019s text. The main discussion in Simplicius appears in the commentary on Physics 1.7\u2014a chapter in which Aristotle does not mention body at all\u2014and begins on its own, without reference to any particular textual segment. Avicenna\u2019s main discussion of corporeity in Shifa\u2019 II, 2.2-3 is likewise, and unlike most other chapter-length parts of the Shifa\u2019, not easily associated with any one locus in Aristotle.\r\n\r\nBoth Avicenna and Simplicius, moreover, introduce terminology\u2014\u201ccorporeal form,\u201d \u201cindeterminate dimensions,\u201d \u201cdeviation\u201d\u2014that is neither Aristotelian nor even Plotinian. The conceptual radicalness can be summed up by saying that both of these solutions reduce corporeity, in the relevant sense, to something extremely abstract. Both refuse to identify it with any of the familiar and easily picturable properties of bodies (extension, volume, surface, three-dimensionality, rigidity, resistance, inertia, weight).\r\n\r\nThis resort to a high degree of conceptual abstraction and interpretative independence reflects both the extreme difficulty of the metaphysical problems and the strong pressure to achieve systematically maintainable solutions where such fundamental issues are at stake. The two solutions agree to a great extent in detail.\r\n\r\nThe abstract property with which both Simplicius and Avicenna wish to identify corporeity is divisibility or partibility: the potency or aptitude by which a material substance, one in actu, is at the same time potentially many. The difference between them is subtle. Avicenna thinks of corporeity, roughly speaking, as the kind of unity (ultimately: substantial unity) that possesses such divisibility. He therefore identifies corporeity with a certain substantial form.\r\n\r\nSimplicius, on the other hand, thinks of corporeity as the privation by which an enmattered substantial form \u201cdeviates\u201d from its intelligible archetype\u2014i.e., by which it deviates from true unity and true being. He therefore identifies corporeity with matter.\r\n\r\nBoth solutions are relatively tenable within their own systematic contexts; neither, however, could likely survive transplantation to the other system. Simplicius\u2019 solution ultimately relies on a full-blown Neoplatonic theory of emanation that Avicenna does not share, while Avicenna\u2019s depends on his non-Neoplatonic views about essential and accidental properties and about the coexistence of multiple substantial forms in a single composite substance.\r\n[conclusion p. 113-114]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GJWf1yj79pw3EdQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":409,"full_name":"Stone, Abraham D.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":483,"full_name":"Wisnovsky, Robert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1425,"section_of":1452,"pages":"73-130","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1452,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aspects of Avicenna","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The articles in this volume aim to further our understanding of the work and thought of the philosopher and physician Ab\u016b \u02bfAl\u012b al-\u1e24usain ibn \u02bfAbd All\u0101h ibn S\u012bn\u0101 (born before 370 AH\/980 CE-died 428 AH\/1037 CE), known in the West by his Latinized name Avicenna. \r\nIt seems to me that what much of the best new schlorahip has in common, and what the articles in this volume aspire to, is a mature and subtle appreciation of the history of Avicenna\u2019s philosophy. By this I mean two things. First, the increasing availability of edited Avicennian texts has allowed scholars to examine a broader spectrum of passages about particular topic than they were able to in the past. This, in turn, has made possible the recent and ongoing attempts to periodize Avicenna\u2019s philosophical career through the careful dating of individual work. Scholars now have to come to terms with the fact that there may not be a single Avicennian position on a given issue, but rather a history of positions, adopted at different periods of his life. \r\nSecond, many of the ancient commentaries on Aristotle, though available in the original Greek for a hundred years now, have only recently been translated into English. These translations, along with the new scholarly work on the commentators which has followed in their wake, have made a massive but heretofore forbidden resource for the history of late-antique and early-medieval philosophy easily accessible to speciallists in Arabic philosophy. The more precisely we understand how Greek philosophy developed durig the period between 200 CE and 600 CE, the better able we shall be to situate the theories of philosophers such as Avicenny in their intellectual-historical context. [introduction\/conclusion]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wL5bMZgjyTXYzBp","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1452,"pubplace":"Princeton","publisher":"Markus Wiener Publishers","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1425,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Princeton papers, interdisciplinary journal of Middle Eastern studies","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"73-130"}},"sort":["Simplicius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance"]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy.\r\n\r\nSimplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d\r\n\r\nPhiloponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"]}
Title | Simplicius and others on Aristotle’s discussions of reason |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1988 |
Published in | Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75 |
Pages | 103-119 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Duffy, John , Peradotto, John J. |
Translator(s) |
What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle’s successors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in particular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of relevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for unlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in the philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a commentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by other, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the Nicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group of Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"784","_score":null,"_source":{"id":784,"authors_free":[{"id":1154,"entry_id":784,"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}},{"id":2428,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":109,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Duffy, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Duffy","norm_person":{"id":109,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Duffy","full_name":"Duffy, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032769092","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2429,"entry_id":784,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":110,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Peradotto, John J.","free_first_name":"John J.","free_last_name":"Peradotto","norm_person":{"id":110,"first_name":"John J.","last_name":"Peradotto","full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172304636","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"},"abstract":"What I want to do in this paper is to look at how Aristotle\u2019s \r\nsuccessors treated some points in his discussions of reason, and in \r\nparticular the discussion in the De anima. bout their handling of \r\nrelevant parts of the Nichomachaean Ethics we know very little, for \r\nunlike the De anima that treatise was not a major subject of study in \r\nthe philosophical lectures and seminars of late antiquity. Though a \r\ncommentary on some of it had been written by Aspasius, and notes by \r\nother, probably pre-Neoplatonic, hands survive,8 exposition of the \r\nNicomachean Ethics seems to have been one of the gaps that the group \r\nof Aristotelians around Anna Comnena in twelfth-century Constantinople felt that they needed to fill. [pp. 104 f.]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fYDdU8vNuJj4BJd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":109,"full_name":"Duffy, John","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":110,"full_name":"Peradotto, John J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":784,"section_of":35,"pages":"103-119","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":35,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Gonimos: Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Duffy1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"This volume, dedicated to the scholar Leendert G. Westerink, comprises 16 articles across two main areas of his research interests: Neo-Platonic and Byzantine studies. The six Neo-Platonic articles explore subjects such as manuscript histories, philosophical debates, and influences of figures like Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. Notably, Father Saffrey investigates an anonymous commentary on Parmenides, while other authors delve into Neo-Platonic mathematics, hymns, and commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason.\r\n\r\nThe ten Byzantine studies articles cover a diverse range of historical and cultural insights. Topics include Byzantine letter-writing practices, with George Dennis highlighting humor in personal correspondence, and Cyril Mango examining the collapse of St. Sophia. Further articles focus on figures such as Psellus, Patriarch Cosmas, and fourteenth-century scholar Georgios Karbones, alongside explorations of political and religious tensions in the Ionian Islands under various European rulers. This collection offers an in-depth look at both Neo-Platonic philosophy and Byzantine cultural dynamics, illustrating the intellectual legacy of Westerink\u2019s scholarship. [summary of Lucas Siorvanes' Review]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QCXOrqqEdxnvWCD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":35,"pubplace":"Buffalo \u2013 New York","publisher":"Arethusa","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and others on Aristotle\u2019s discussions of reason"]}
Title | Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 159-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"655","_score":null,"_source":{"id":655,"authors_free":[{"id":943,"entry_id":655,"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}},{"id":944,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and\r\nhis interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian\u2019s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions \u2013 which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts\r\nand authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of\r\nhandling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features\r\njustify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius\u2019 aim to annotate Aristotle\u2019s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":655,"section_of":289,"pages":"159-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"]}
Title | Simplicius de Cilicie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus à Tyrsénos |
Pages | 341-394 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Goulet, Richard , Coda, Elisa |
Editor(s) | Goulet, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philosophe et commentateur néoplatonicien, disciple d’Ammonius à Alexandrie, puis de Damascius à Athènes. La notice a été rédigée par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et œuvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de cohérence, la numérotation des références propre à chacune de ces deux parties a été conservée. Simplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d’années l’objet de vifs débats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n’ont pas encore été publiés, n’ont pu être prises en compte dans la présente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a rédigé une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l’ensemble des problèmes soulevés par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas être publiée sous la forme d’une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu’il était préférable de la faire paraître ailleurs, dans son intégralité et sous son format originel. Son riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la rédaction de la présente notice. L’ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. « Academia Philosophical Studies » 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p. Des astérisques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compléments du présent tome. [introduction p. 341] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"899","_score":null,"_source":{"id":899,"authors_free":[{"id":1328,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1981,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":143,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coda, Elisa","free_first_name":"Elisa","free_last_name":"Coda","norm_person":{"id":143,"first_name":"Elisa","last_name":"Coda","full_name":"Coda, Elisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168595843","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1983,"entry_id":899,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":136,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Goulet, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Goulet","norm_person":{"id":136,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Goulet","full_name":"Goulet, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1042353395","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius de Cilicie","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius de Cilicie"},"abstract":"Philosophe et commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien, disciple d\u2019Ammonius \u00e0 Alexandrie, puis de Damascius \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes.\r\n\r\nLa notice a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9dig\u00e9e par Richard Goulet (informations biographiques et \u0153uvres) et Elisa Coda (In De caelo et In Physica : Simplicius dans la tradition arabe). Par souci de coh\u00e9rence, la num\u00e9rotation des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences propre \u00e0 chacune de ces deux parties a \u00e9t\u00e9 conserv\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nSimplicius fait depuis quelques dizaines d\u2019ann\u00e9es l\u2019objet de vifs d\u00e9bats. Des contributions importantes, faites notamment dans des colloques dont les actes n\u2019ont pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9s, n\u2019ont pu \u00eatre prises en compte dans la pr\u00e9sente notice. Mme I. Hadot, en collaboration avec Ph. Vallat, a r\u00e9dig\u00e9 une longue mise au point (de plus de 160 pages) sur l\u2019ensemble des probl\u00e8mes soulev\u00e9s par Simplicius : il est apparu que cette importante contribution ne pouvait pas \u00eatre publi\u00e9e sous la forme d\u2019une notice de ce dictionnaire et qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pr\u00e9f\u00e9rable de la faire para\u00eetre ailleurs, dans son int\u00e9gralit\u00e9 et sous son format originel.\r\n\r\nSon riche contenu ne sera donc malheureusement pas pris en compte dans la r\u00e9daction de la pr\u00e9sente notice. L\u2019ouvrage est maintenant paru : Ilsetraut Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines. Un bilan critique. Avec deux contributions de Philippe Vallat, coll. \u00ab Academia Philosophical Studies \u00bb 48, Sankt Augustin, 2014, 309 p.\r\n\r\nDes ast\u00e9risques dans le texte annoncent des ajouts ponctuels dans les compl\u00e9ments du pr\u00e9sent tome. [introduction p. 341]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0VMZHkLRvtbfenF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":143,"full_name":"Coda, Elisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":136,"full_name":"Goulet, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":899,"section_of":375,"pages":"341-394","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":375,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. VI: de Sabinillus \u00e0 Tyrs\u00e9nos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Goulet2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1994","abstract":"Rebiew by Udo Hartmann, Institut f\u00fcr Altertumswissenschaften, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit\u00e4t Jena: Der von Richard Goulet herausgegebene Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques geh\u00f6rt zweifellos zu den wichtigsten Projekten auf dem Gebiet der Philosophiegeschichte der Antike in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Mit dem siebenten ist nun der letzte der gewichtigen B\u00e4nde dieses Lexikons erschienen, das in umfassender Weise \u00fcber alle Philosophen der Antike informiert. Seit 1981 arbeiteten zahlreiche Wissenschaftler unter Leitung Goulets an diesem Projekt des CNRS, der erste Band des Lexikons mit dem Buchstaben A wurde dann im Jahr 1989 ver\u00f6ffentlicht. Nunmehr liegen die sieben B\u00e4nde und ein Supplementband (von 2003) des Nachschlagewerks vor, das in teilweise sehr umfangreichen Artikeln alle bezeugten Philosophen von den Vorsokratikern bis zu den Neuplatonikern des 6. Jahrhunderts in biographischen Eintr\u00e4gen in alphabetischer Form \u2013 versehen mit Nummern \u2013 vorstellt. Dabei werden nicht nur die bedeutenden griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Philosophen und ihre Sch\u00fcler, sondern alle Personen aufgenommen, die in den Quellen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 charakterisiert werden, an einer Philosophenschule studiert haben oder im Umfeld von Philosophen t\u00e4tig waren. In diesem Dictionnaire finden sich somit auch zahlreiche weitgehend unbekannte Philosophen und Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen (Sophisten, Mediziner, Mathematiker oder Dichter) sowie alle Personen, die auf Grund ihrer Gelehrsamkeit oder Lebenshaltung in literarischen, epigraphischen und papyrologischen Zeugnissen als \u201aPhilosophen\u2018 bezeichnet werden. Neben dieser Vollst\u00e4ndigkeit der Erfassung antiker Philosophen beeindruckt das Lexikon auch durch seine Gr\u00fcndlichkeit: Die zumeist hervorragenden Eintr\u00e4ge informieren \u00fcber den Lebenslauf und die Werke der Gelehrten, listen aber auch die Forschungsliteratur zu den Philosophen in enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise auf; die Autoren diskutieren zudem die relevanten Forschungsfragen und besprechen auch die ikonographischen Zeugnisse zu den Gelehrten. Dabei werden sowohl die griechischen und lateinischen Quellen als auch die orientalische \u00dcberlieferung bei syrischen, armenischen, georgischen und arabischen Autoren f\u00fcr den Leser erschlossen. F\u00fcr sehr viele Artikel konnten zudem ausgewiesene Fachleute zum jeweiligen Denker als Autoren gewonnen werden. Zahlreiche qualit\u00e4tsvolle Artikel stammen aber auch aus der Feder Goulets (im vorliegenden siebenten Band sind es 83 Artikel), der sich in unz\u00e4hligen Arbeiten um die Erforschung der antiken Philosophiegeschichte verdient gemacht hat. Der Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques ist somit f\u00fcr alle, die sich mit der Philosophie und dem Bildungswesen der Antike besch\u00e4ftigen, zu einem unverzichtbaren Hilfsmittel geworden.\r\n\r\nUmso erfreulicher ist es, dass nun alle Artikel vorliegen. Auch der letzte Band des Dictionnaire erf\u00fcllt die in ihn gesteckten Erwartungen: In gewohnter Qualit\u00e4t werden hier die Philosophen von U bis Z vorgestellt. Doch bietet der von Goulet sorgf\u00e4ltig redigierte Band weitaus mehr:1 Nach der Liste der Autoren des Bandes und der Abk\u00fcrzungen (S. 9\u201382)2 und einem ersten Lexikonsteil, in dem die Philosophen mit den Anfangsbuchstaben U, V, X und Z aufgef\u00fchrt werden (S. 85\u2013451), folgen im zweiten Teil \u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c (S. 453\u20131018), also Supplementeintr\u00e4ge zu Philosophen von A bis T, die in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden nicht aufgenommen wurden, und Erg\u00e4nzung zu bereits publizierten Artikeln, etwa zu Aristoteles oder Heraklit. Die beiden Anh\u00e4nge im dritten Teil des Bandes (S. 1019\u20131174) stellen die bislang im Dictionnaire noch nicht besprochenen philosophischen Schulen vor: In der sehr knapp gehaltenen und mit nur wenigen Literaturhinweisen versehenen \u201eAnnexe I\u201c bespricht Marco Di Branco Lykeion, Stoa und Epikurs Garten sowie die neuplatonische Schule von Apameia (S. 1019\u20131024), wobei er sich auf die baulichen Strukturen konzentriert und kaum etwas zu den Institutionen sagt; in der umfangreichen \u201eAnnexe II\u201c (\u201eCompl\u00e9ments\u201c zu P 333. Pythagore de Samos, S. 1025\u20131174) stellt Constantinos Macris die Pythagoreer, ihre Lehren und die pythagoreischen Traditionen bis in die Sp\u00e4tantike sowie das Nachleben bis in die Fr\u00fche Neuzeit vor, wobei Macris in erster Linie die umf\u00e4ngliche Literatur zu den verschiedenen Aspekten zusammenstellt.3\r\n\r\nDen Abschluss des Bandes bildet ein Epimetrum (S. 1175\u20131217), in dem Goulet in Tabellen, Diagrammen und \u00dcbersichten eine statistische Auswertung zu den antiken Philosophen vorlegt. Goulet betrachtet dabei die Zugeh\u00f6rigkeit zu den antiken Philosophenschulen, Herkunft, Ausbildungsort und Geschlecht und analysiert die Angaben auch in der Abfolge der Jahrhunderte. Die Aussagekraft der statistischen Ergebnisse erschlie\u00dft sich dem Leser allerdings nicht immer, da Goulet zumeist keine Interpretation bietet. Was bedeutet es etwa, wenn 19 Prozent aller bekannten Philosophen Platoniker und 8 Prozent Epikureer waren? Was hei\u00dft es, dass mit 105 Inschriften die meisten epigraphischen Zeugnisse f\u00fcr Philosophen aus dem 2. Jahrhundert stammen (gefolgt von 43 im 1. Jahrhundert)? Was bedeutet es, dass unter den Philosophinnen im 5. Jahrhundert v.Chr. die meisten Frauen Pythagoreerinnen (12) waren (gefolgt von 8 Epikureerinnen im 4. Jahrhundert v.Chr.)? Die Register (S. 1219\u20131465) erschlie\u00dfen die Eigennamen (und geben \u2013 wenn vorhanden \u2013 den prosopographischen Eintrag fett an), Namen und Begriffe aus den Werktiteln der antiken Philosophen sowie die Kommentare, Paraphrasen und antiken \u00dcbersetzungen zu philosophischen Werken aus allen B\u00e4nden des Dictionnaire. Die drei Register erm\u00f6glichen nun also eine hervorragende Orientierung in diesem umfangreichen Nachschlagewerk.\r\n\r\nIm ersten Teil des siebenten Bandes werden alle bekannten Philosophen von Ulpianos von Gaza (Goulet, U 1, S. 85), einem Kommilitonen des Proklos in Alexandreia, bis zum Plotin-Sch\u00fcler Zotikos (Luc Brisson, Z 44, S. 451) betrachtet. Die umfangreichsten Beitr\u00e4ge sind dabei den bekannten Philosophen gewidmet, so dem sp\u00e4tantiken Platoniker und Theologen Marius Victorinus (Lenka Karf\u00edkov\u00e1, V 14, S. 153\u2013166), zu dem ausf\u00fchrlich die Thesen \u00fcber m\u00f6gliche Einfl\u00fcsse des Plotin, des Porphyrios, der Mittelplatoniker und der Neuplatoniker nach Porphyrios auf sein Denken vorgestellt werden, dem Vorsokratiker Xenophanes (Dominique Arnould \/ Goulet, X 15, S. 211\u2013219), dem Schulhaupt der Akademie Xenokrates (Margherita Isnardi Parente, X 10, S. 194\u2013208), dem Sokratiker Xenophon (Louis-Andr\u00e9 Dorion \/ J\u00f6rn Lang, X 19, S. 227\u2013290), in dessen Eintrag auch der \u201aAlte Oligarch\u2018 kurz besprochen wird, dem Eleaten Zenon (Daniel de Smet, Z 19, S. 346\u2013363) sowie dem Begr\u00fcnder der Stoa, Zenon von Kition (Jean-Baptiste Gourinat \/ Lang, Z 20, S. 364\u2013396). Dan Dana stellt das legend\u00e4re Material zum Geten Zalmoxis, dem Sklaven und Sch\u00fcler des Pythagoras, vor (Z 3, S. 317\u2013322). Aber auch in diesem Band finden sich neben den Philosophen wieder viele Gelehrte mit philosophischen Interessen: Lange Artikel er\u00f6rtern so Leben und Werk sowie philosophische Beeinflussungen des Universalgelehrten M. Terentius Varro, der in Athen studiert hat (Yves Lehmann, V 5, S. 94\u2013133), des Dichters Vergil (R\u00e9gine Chambert, V 10, S. 136\u2013147), dessen Bildungsweg ausf\u00fchrlich nachgezeichnet wird, des Theologen Zacharias Rhetor (Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Alpi, Z 1, S. 301\u2013308), dessen polemische Schriften gegen pagane Neuplatoniker genauer vorgestellt werden4, sowie des Alchemisten Zosimos von Panopolis (Matteo Martelli, Z 42, 447\u2013450), der auch eine Platon-Vita verfa\u00dft haben soll.5 Neben diesen prominenten Namen vereint der siebente Band aber auch wieder zahlreiche kaum bekannte Philosophen und viele nur an wenigen Stellen in philosophischen Werken erw\u00e4hnte, schattenhafte Gelehrte wie den Skeptiker Xeniades von Korinth (Marie-Odile Goulet-Caz\u00e9, X 4, S. 189f.), den Diadochen Zenodotos an der Athener Schule aus dem sp\u00e4ten 5. Jahrhundert, dessen Scholarchat Goulet jedoch bezweifelt (Z 10, S. 341f.)6, den Juden und Proklos-Sch\u00fcler Zenon von Alexandreia (Goulet, Z 18, S. 345)7 oder den Stoiker Zenothemis, eine erfundene Gestalt aus einem Dialog Lukians (Patrick Robiano, Z 26, S. 417f.). Aufgenommen wurden schlie\u00dflich einige nur epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen und philosophierende Beamte wie der von Goulet als Epikureer gedeutete Ritter und praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osrhoenae L. Valerius Valerianus signo Dardanius (V 2, S. 89f.)8, der Stoiker P. Avianius Valerius (V 3, S. 90), der laut Bernadette Puech im 2. Jahrhundert im mysischen Hadrianoi wirkte9, der Platoniker Zosimos oder der Athener Stoiker Zosimianos (Puech, Z 41, S. 447; Z 43, S. 450).10\r\n\r\nIm Supplementteil werden ebenfalls einige bekannte Philosophen besprochen, der ausf\u00fchrlichste Beitrag ist indes Pythagoras gewidmet (P 333, S. 681\u2013884): Detailliert er\u00f6rtert Macris hier die biographischen Traditionen \u00fcber Pythagoras vom Zeitgenossen Xenophanes \u00fcber die hellenistischen Viten bis zu Iamblichs Pythagoras-Schrift, die ikonographischen Zeugnisse sowie die Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras\u2019 Leben, Schule und Lehren. Macris erschlie\u00dft zudem in geradezu enzyklop\u00e4discher Weise die Literatur zu allen Aspekten (S. 681\u2013850).11 Erg\u00e4nzt wird diese Beitrag von einer Analyse der gnomologischen Tradition durch Katarzyna Prochenko (S. 851\u2013860) sowie der syrischen und arabischen \u00dcberlieferung durch Anna Izdebska (S. 860\u2013884). Etwas k\u00fcnstlich wirkt indes die Auslagerung der Besprechung der Pythagoreer durch Macris in die bereits erw\u00e4hnte \u201eAnnexe II\u201c, l\u00e4\u00dft sich die Tradition doch kaum scharf in Berichte \u00fcber Pythagoras und \u00fcber die Pythagoreer und deren Lehren trennen. Ausf\u00fchrliche Beitr\u00e4ge stellen zudem den Theologen und Exegeten Didymos den Blinden (Marco Zambon, D 106a, S. 485\u2013513), den Theologen Gregor von Nyssa und sein Verh\u00e4ltnis zur Philosophie (Matthieu Cassin, G 34a, S. 534\u2013571), den Pythagoreer Philolaos (Macris, P 143, S. 637\u2013667) und den Sokratiker Simmias von Theben (Macris, S 86, S. 904\u2013933) vor. Aber auch im Supplementteil finden sich viele in den fr\u00fcheren B\u00e4nden \u00fcbersehene, wenig bekannte Philosophen, die oft blo\u00dfe Namen bleiben, halblegend\u00e4re Personen wie Themistokleia, eine Priesterin aus Delphi und \u201aLehrerin\u2018 des Pythagoras (Macris, T 39a, S. 963\u2013965), sowie erfundene, literarische Gestalten wie die sicherlich fiktiven Dialogpartner Aigyptos und Euxitheos im Theophrastos des Aineas von Gaza (Goulet, A 59a, S. 456; E 182a, 525).12 Erg\u00e4nzt werden im Supplementteil zudem einige lediglich epigraphisch bezeugte Philosophen wie T. Coponius Maximus (Puech, M 72a, S. 607\u2013608), einige philosophieinteressierte Gelehrte wie der Mediziner Magnos von Nisibis (Richard Goulet \/ V\u00e9ronique Boudon-Millot, M 13a, S. 584\u2013588) sowie bildungsbeflissene Beamte wie der comes Orientis Iulianus, den Libanios als Philosoph beschreibt (epist. 1261, 4\u20135; Goulet, I 43a, S. 579), oder der praefectus Augustalis Pentadios (Goulet, P 78a, S. 633).13 Der Sophist und Hermogenes-Kommentator Euagoras wurde von Goulet erg\u00e4nzt, da Syrianus ihn als Philosophen qualifiziert (E 182b, S. 525).14 Bislang unbeachtet blieb in allen Prosopographien der bei Pappos von Alexandreia erw\u00e4hnte \u201aPhilosoph\u2018 Hierios, der im fr\u00fchen 4. Jahrhundert in Alexandreia Mathematik unterrichtete (Goulet, H 119a, S. 578).15 Ob allerdings der auch als Schriftsteller t\u00e4tige Augustus seinen knappen Eintrag im Supplementteil des Philosophenlexikons wirklich verdient hat (Yasmina Benferhat, O 7a, S. 626), kann man sicher bezweifeln.\r\n\r\nAuch der siebente und letzte Band des Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques erfasst somit in hervorragender Weise das Quellenmaterial und die Forschungen zu den Philosophen von U bis Z und bietet im Supplementteil wichtige Erg\u00e4nzungen zu den bislang erschienenen B\u00e4nden, deren Inhalt nun auch durch das umf\u00e4ngliche Gesamtregister erfasst werden kann. Der gut gebundene und relativ preiswerte Band sollte daher in keiner altertumswissenschaftlichen Bibliothek fehlen. Man kann den Autoren der Beitr\u00e4ge und allen voran dem Herausgeber Goulet nur f\u00fcr ihre sorgf\u00e4ltige und hervorragende Arbeit danken, dank der nun nach knapp drei Jahrzehnten ein ausgezeichnetes Nachschlagewerk vorliegt, das die Welt der antiken Philosophen vollst\u00e4ndig erschlie\u00dft.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tuaXpGlzy0XByyW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":375,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"CNRS \u00c9ditions","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius de Cilicie"]}
Title | Simplicius et l'école' éléate |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 166-182 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cordero, Néstor-Luis |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1278","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1278,"authors_free":[{"id":1867,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":54,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","free_last_name":"Cordero","norm_person":{"id":54,"first_name":"N\u00e9stor-Luis","last_name":"Cordero","full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055808973","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2346,"entry_id":1278,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"},"abstract":"This text discusses the concept of the Eleatic school of philosophy, which is attributed to the philosophers Parmenides and Xenophanes. The author argues that the school may not have actually existed as a unified movement, but rather was an invention to help classify the philosophical systems of ancient Greece. The author discusses the historical development of the Eleatic school from Plato to Simplicius and analyzes the presentation of the four Eleatic philosophers by Simplicius. The author concludes that Simplicius, like Plato and Aristotle before him, considers Parmenides to be the central figure of the Eleatic school. The text also examines the reasons why the Eleatic school has been characterized as monistic, and argues that this may be due to a misinterpretation of the works of Parmenides and Melissus. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TmkANfK25JZ4wfH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":54,"full_name":"Cordero, N\u00e9stor-Luis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1278,"section_of":171,"pages":"166-182","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole' \u00e9l\u00e9ate"]}
Title | Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden |
Pages | 67-73 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. |
Editor(s) | Holmes, Brooke , Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich |
Translator(s) |
The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius’ reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1482,"authors_free":[{"id":2564,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2567,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":549,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Holmes, Brooke","free_first_name":"Brooke","free_last_name":"Holmes","norm_person":{"id":549,"first_name":"Brooke","last_name":"Holmes","full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017511543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2568,"entry_id":1482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":550,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","free_first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","free_last_name":"Fischer","norm_person":{"id":550,"first_name":"Klaus-Dietrich ","last_name":"Fischer","full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13237076X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question"},"abstract":"The debate in the sixth century between the Christian philosopher JohnPhiloponus and the Platonist philosopher Simplicius about whether the cosmos was created or eternal was of momentous importance not only to their understanding of the world and of the means to salvation from its trials but also to their views of what astronomical science was and how it should proceed in making its arguments. This brief chapter outlines this debate and then explores the main lines of attack to be taken in determining how Thomas Aquinas, who was supplied by William of Moerbeke with a translation of the text in which Simplicius responds to Philoponus, dealt with Simplicius\u2019 reading of Aristotle in advancing a vigorous polemic against his Christian faith. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rIm87BQ2FbfPk81","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":549,"full_name":"Holmes, Brooke","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":550,"full_name":"Fischer, Klaus-Dietrich ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1482,"section_of":1483,"pages":"67-73","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1483,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Frontiers of Ancient Science: Essays in Honor of Heinrich von Staden","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Holmes-Fisher_2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Our understanding of science, mathematics, and medicine today can be deeply enriched by studying the historical roots of these areas of inquiry in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean. The present volume brings together contributions from more than thirty of the most important scholars working in these fields in the United States and Europe in honor of the eminent historian of ancient science and medicine Heinrich von Staden. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gq9gFanQtC9OclL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1483,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Beitr\u00e4ge zur Altertumskunde","volume":"338","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius in Thirteenth-Century Paris: A Question"]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 711-732 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The few facts we have about Simplicius’ life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18–19) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245–320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as "the divine Iamblichus," In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus ("the teacher of my teachers," In Phys. 611.11–12, cf. 795.4–5). The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event. There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7). Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment. There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"965","_score":null,"_source":{"id":965,"authors_free":[{"id":1449,"entry_id":965,"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}},{"id":2091,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia"},"abstract":"The few facts we have about Simplicius\u2019 life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18\u201319) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245\u2013320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as \"the divine Iamblichus,\" In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus (\"the teacher of my teachers,\" In Phys. 611.11\u201312, cf. 795.4\u20135).\r\n\r\nThe expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian\u2019s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480\u2013560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30\u20139 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39\u201344\/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.\r\n\r\nThere has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a \"philosopher-king,\" the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).\r\n\r\nOthers have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu\u2019s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThere are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the \"divine Iamblichus\" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PftkJOubxPYtz2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":965,"section_of":964,"pages":"711-732","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius of Cilicia"]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity |
Pages | 569-579 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A. |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristotle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Simplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the Enchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good working picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] While it would be unsafe to say that Simplicius does not misinterpret Plato at times (indeed, what commentator, ancient or modern, gets an author correct all of the time?), he does serve as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed—at times repetitive—but generally useful companion. Only further analysis into his reading and interpretation of Plato can provide the answers we would need to fully resolve that question. But I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today—as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.] While it would be unsafe to say that Simplicius does not misinterpret Plato at times (indeed, what commentator, ancient or modern, gets an author correct all of the time?), he does serve as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed\u2014at times repetitive\u2014but generally useful companion. Only further analysis into his reading and interpretation of Plato can provide the answers we would need to fully resolve that question.\r\n\r\nBut I hope to have given some considerations as to why close attention to how Simplicius reads Plato repays the effort, and why the last Platonist of antiquity should be seen at least as an important partner in our interpretation of Plato today\u2014as he is also seen to be when it comes to Plato's student, Aristotle. [conclusion p. 579]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y0tbmepvoUs8Xf5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"]}
Title | Simplicius of Kilikia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 743-745 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Upon Justinian’s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references). He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers. With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God. In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality. On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination. Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world. Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12). A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought. In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle. Possible Medical Writings Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1264,"authors_free":[{"id":1854,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2094,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2095,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Kilikia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Kilikia"},"abstract":"Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Upon Justinian\u2019s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references).\r\n\r\nHe preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus\u2019 summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.\r\n\r\nWith Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the \u201creturn\u201d to God.\r\n\r\nIn explicating Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle\u2019s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.\r\n\r\nOn scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle\u2019s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called \u201csupernatural.\u201d Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle\u2019s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle\u2019s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato\u2019s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.\r\nContributions to the Concepts of Time and Place\r\n\r\nHis most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus\u2019 criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an \u201corganism\u201d with \u201cmembers.\u201d Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world\u2019s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius\u2019 idea that measure\u2014a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit\u2014determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).\r\n\r\nA second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time\u2019s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being \u201cabove change\u201d (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius\u2019 solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.\r\n\r\nIn his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.\r\nPossible Medical Writings\r\n\r\nSome evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (\u201cOn Setting [Bones]\u201d). [the entire text p. 743-745]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1264,"section_of":1265,"pages":"743-745","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1264,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"743-745"}},"sort":["Simplicius of Kilikia"]}
Title | Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies |
Pages | 141-158 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sanchez, Liliana Carolina |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Nejeschleba, Tomáš |
Translator(s) |
The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle’s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually “taken for granted instead of explained” (Baltussen 2008, 22). I’m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but ‘Simplicius’ in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship. The reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen’s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator’s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their “harmonization” project of Plato’s and Aristotle’s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle’s philosophical aims more than explain them. In the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle’s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is ‘Simplicius’’ commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle’s thought. My aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text. In order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by ‘Simplicius’ to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle’s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology. By doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is. [introduction p. 141-142] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1492","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1492,"authors_free":[{"id":2586,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":554,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":" Sanchez, Liliana Carolina","free_first_name":"Liliana Carolina","free_last_name":" Sanchez","norm_person":{"id":554,"first_name":"Liliana Carolina ","last_name":"Sanchez","full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2587,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2590,"entry_id":1492,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":555,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","free_last_name":"Nejeschleba,","norm_person":{"id":555,"first_name":"Tom\u00e1\u0161","last_name":"Nejeschleba,","full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1103057413","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 "},"abstract":"The task of the Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle\u2019s works, mostly in what has to do with dialectical passages, is usually \u201ctaken for granted instead of explained\u201d (Baltussen 2008, 22). I\u2019m borrowing these words employed by Han Baltussen in a different context to talk about the appreciation that the commentaries on the first book of the De Anima, in general, but \u2018Simplicius\u2019 in particular, have received from contemporary scholarship.\r\n\r\nThe reason I feel entitled to make such an amplification of the scope of Baltussen\u2019s judgment has to do, in fact, with the traditional way in which the commentator\u2019s exegetical effort is seen. Their role is often considered in light of their doctrinal commitment to Neoplatonic doctrine and, notably, with their \u201charmonization\u201d project of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s thought. Because of that, these readings are held to distort Aristotle\u2019s philosophical aims more than explain them.\r\n\r\nIn the following lines, I aim to study one of those cases in which the exegetical labor of a Neoplatonic commentator is seen as carrying a doctrinal element that entails a certain distortion of Aristotle\u2019s thought. The case that I propose to analyze is \u2018Simplicius\u2019\u2019 commentary on the soul-harmony theory, for the commentator runs his interpretation with the aid of certain Neoplatonic theories that are alien to Aristotle\u2019s thought.\r\n\r\nMy aim is to track how the hermeneutical device that the commentator applies to the Aristotelian text is built up from the elements provided in the text itself, how the foreign doctrine is introduced, and how this elicits a global comprehension and a philosophical appropriation of the text.\r\n\r\nIn order to do so, I will first present the passage and the alien theory that is being employed by \u2018Simplicius\u2019 to perform his exegesis; then, I will show how the commentator chains two passages of the text and produces an explanation for the refutation of the soul-harmony theory. Finally, I will describe what kind of interpretation is produced and how it serves to explain Aristotle\u2019s challenge in using the hylomorphic model applied to psychology.\r\n\r\nBy doing this, I hope that I can explain how the commentator feels authorized to introduce the alien theory, how he builds up his exegesis around a problem that he needs to solve, and consequently, what the philosophical product of such an interpretation is.\r\n[introduction p. 141-142]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tdfaeVFtEPFwy1s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":554,"full_name":"Sanchez, Liliana Carolina ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":555,"full_name":"Nejeschleba, Tom\u00e1\u0161","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1492,"section_of":1493,"pages":"141-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1493,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Platonism and Its Legacy: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3oPlmdyJ3ZKj82v","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1493,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Prometheus Trust","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on De Anima 407b23-408a29 "]}
Title | Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 111-128 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
One of Simplicius’ contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of ‘principle,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘element’ in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21–20.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the ‘elements’ requires further attention is clear from Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles. My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"912","_score":null,"_source":{"id":912,"authors_free":[{"id":1343,"entry_id":912,"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}},{"id":2089,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2090,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"},"abstract":"One of Simplicius\u2019 contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of \u2018principle,\u2019 \u2018cause,\u2019 and \u2018element\u2019 in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21\u201320.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the \u2018elements\u2019 requires further attention is clear from Simplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius\u2019 technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius\u2019 own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle\u2019s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle\u2019s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle\u2019s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius\u2019 own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered\u2014the different \u2018sources,\u2019 so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/g1SyUqDyUcBATre","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":912,"section_of":155,"pages":"111-128","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"]}
Title | Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003 |
Pages | 89-98 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | O’Meara, Dominic J. |
Editor(s) | Gannagé, Emma |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual of Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school’s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the passage in Simplicius’ commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"663","_score":null,"_source":{"id":663,"authors_free":[{"id":966,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O\u2019Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O\u2019Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":967,"entry_id":663,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":467,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","free_first_name":"Emma","free_last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","norm_person":{"id":467,"first_name":" Emma","last_name":"Gannag\u00e9","full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102294063","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to propose some discussion of a passage in which a pagan Neoplatonist philosopher of the first half of the sixth century A. D. speaks of the function of the philosopher in political and social life. The Neoplatonist is Simplicius and the passage is found in chapter 32 of his commentary on the Manual \r\nof Epictetus. The date of this commentary is uncertain, but it has been argued that Simplicius refers in it to the anti-pagan measures taken by the Emperor Justinian in 529 which put an end to the activities of the Neoplatonist school at Athens and led to the exile in Persia of the school\u2019s head, Damascius, accompanied by his pupil Simplicius and by other philosophers. My translation, given below (II), of the pas\u00adsage in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is preceded (I) by some indications concerning the context in which the passage occurs and will be followed (III) by comments on themes present in the passage. [introduction, p. 89]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/q9F64Dfl9UaGBE7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":467,"full_name":"Gannag\u00e9, Emma","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":663,"section_of":303,"pages":"89-98","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":303,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Greek strand in Islamic political thought. Proceedings of the conference held at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, 16 - 27 June 2003","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gannag\u00e92004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"Review: Durant deux semaines s\u2019est r\u00e9uni ce symposium de sp\u00e9cialistes concern\u00e9s, de loin ou de pr\u00e8s, par le th\u00e8me d\u00e9battu. Les uns y auront particip\u00e9 tout au long, les autres pour une p\u00e9riode plus courte. Le temps se trouvait r\u00e9parti entre expos\u00e9s, discussions et lectures de textes, les actes maintenant publi\u00e9s ne refl\u00e9tant en cons\u00e9quence et, malgr\u00e9 les dimensions de l\u2019ouvrage, qu\u2019une partie des contributions qui ont scand\u00e9 ces journ\u00e9es d\u2019\u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nNous tirons ces d\u00e9tails de l\u2019Introduction (p. 9-12) que signe P. Crone (Princeton), la responsable de la r\u00e9union et qu\u2019on peut consid\u00e9rer comme la premi\u00e8re \u00e9ditrice scientifique du volume collectif, \u00e0 en juger, entre autres, par les r\u00e9f\u00e9rences qui lui sont faites dans les remerciements de plusieurs des coauteurs. On conna\u00eet, du reste, son ouvrage de fond, Gods Rule Government in Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought (Columbia UP, New York, 2004), qui a fourni l\u2019occasion de r\u00e9unir les coll\u00e8gues int\u00e9ress\u00e9s autour de l\u2019une des composantes de cette pens\u00e9e, pens\u00e9e dont l\u2019analyse s\u2019av\u00e8re tellement actuelle en fonction de la conjoncture internationale. \u00c0 ce propos, on ne manquera pas de saluer l\u2019id\u00e9e de publier les fruits de cette r\u00e9flexion, men\u00e9e dans une institution occidentale lointaine, au c\u0153ur m\u00eame de la r\u00e9gion o\u00f9 l\u2019orientation politique de la religion est \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb intens\u00e9ment, m\u00eame si le p\u00e9riodique en cause appartient \u00e0 une institution acad\u00e9mique mi-\u00e9trang\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nL\u2019ouvrage s\u2019ouvre par une grosse \u00e9tude sur le r\u00e9alisme de la pens\u00e9e politique grecque, dont l\u2019auteur figure parmi les cinq co\u00e9diteurs de l\u2019ouvrage : \u2013 Eckart Sch\u00fctrumpf (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder), Imperfect Regimes for Imperfect Human Beings: Variations of Infractions of Justice, p. 9-36.\r\n\r\nPr\u00e9c\u00e9dant les textes traitant directement du sujet, une s\u00e9rie de cinq contributions \u00e9tudie la r\u00e9ception des id\u00e9es politiques de la Gr\u00e8ce antique durant la Basse Antiquit\u00e9 et nous offre un tableau g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de la pens\u00e9e politique du Moyen-Orient \u00e0 la veille de l\u2019apparition de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Sarah Pearce (Univ. of Southampton), King Moses: Notes on Philo\u2019s Portrait of Moses as an Ideal Leader in the Life of Moses, p. 37-74 (avec de longues citations de texte) ; \u2013 Harold A. Drake (Univ. of California Santa Barbara), The Eusabian Template, p. 75-88 ; \u2013 Dominic J. O\u2019Meara (Univ. de Fribourg), Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum, chap. 32), p. 89-98 (rappelons qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019un disciple de Damascius, exil\u00e9 avec son ma\u00eetre en Perse, lors de la suppression de l\u2019\u00c9cole d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes par Justinien) ; \u2013 Henri Hugonnard-Roche (EPHE, Sorbonne-Paris), \u00c9thique et politique au premier \u00e2ge de la tradition syriaque, p. 99-119 (s\u2019int\u00e9resse plus \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9thique personnelle, certes avec ses implications sociales, qu\u2019\u00e0 la politique de la cit\u00e9) ; \u2013 John W. Watt (Cardiff Univ., Wales), Syriac and Syrians as Mediators of Greek Political Thought to Islam, p. 121-149.\r\n\r\nLes deux expos\u00e9s suivants mettent en relief un aspect jusqu\u2019ici peu relev\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir : l\u2019importance de la tradition perse sassanide dans la tradition moyen-orientale aux d\u00e9buts de l\u2019islam : \u2013 Kevin van Bladel (Univ. of Southern California Los Angeles), The Iranian Chracteristics and Forged Greek Attributions in the Arabic Sirr al-asr\u0101r (Secret of Secrets), p. 151-172 ; \u2013 Mohsen Zakeri (J.W. Goethe-Univ., Frankfurt), The Persian Content of an Arabic Collection of Aphorisms, p. 173-190 (1).\r\n\r\nUne double conclusion ressort de ces deux \u00e9tudes, renforc\u00e9e par la lecture de plusieurs des pr\u00e9c\u00e9dentes : d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, la diffusion certaine de la pens\u00e9e grecque en territoire iranien et, de l\u2019autre, l\u2019impact ind\u00e9niable de la tradition persane dans l\u2019ensemble du Moyen-Orient. En cons\u00e9quence, l\u2019islam naissant a rencontr\u00e9 une r\u00e9alit\u00e9 culturelle fruit du croisement de ce double courant, m\u00eame si le prestige de l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00e9tait plus grand au moment de l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la culture musulmane classique.\r\n\r\nP. Crone est consciente de cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9, allant m\u00eame jusqu\u2019\u00e0 affirmer qu\u2019au-del\u00e0 du mouvement de traductions avec la cha\u00eene de production litt\u00e9raire qui s\u2019en est suivie, somme toute accessible \u00e0 des milieux restreints, le background hell\u00e9no-iranien en question a constitu\u00e9 les v\u00e9ritables bases de la culture islamique globalement parlant (p. 9). \u00c0 ce propos, elle situe les d\u00e9buts du mouvement de traductions au milieu du viie si\u00e8cle avec l\u2019\u00e9mergence de la dynastie abbasside. Or, pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment dans le domaine de la philosophie politique, herm\u00e9tisme et cycle d\u2019Alexandre le Grand compris, des recherches r\u00e9centes (Grignaschi, entre autres) prouvent que des textes importants avaient \u00e9t\u00e9 connus d\u00e8s la seconde p\u00e9riode omeyyade, \u00e0 savoir d\u00e8s les d\u00e9buts de ce m\u00eame si\u00e8cle. \r\nLa plupart des interventions traitant du th\u00e8me central sont consacr\u00e9es au \u00ab Faylas\u016bf al-isl\u0101m \u00bb. La derni\u00e8re, celle sur les textes n\u00e9oplatoniciens, fait partie de ce groupe, dans la mesure o\u00f9 al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b est le plus grand repr\u00e9sentant de ce courant en islam : \u2013 P. Crone, Al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s Imperfect Constitutions, p. 191-228 ; \u2013 Emma Gannag\u00e9 (USJ), Y a-t-il une pens\u00e9e politique dans le Kit\u0101b al-\u1e24ur\u016bf d\u2019al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b ?, p. 229-257 ; \u2013 Dimitri Gutas (Yale Univ. ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), The Meaning of madan\u012b in F.\u2019s \u201c Political \u201d Philosophy, p. 259-282 ; \u2013 Nelly Lahoud (Goucher College, Baltimore), F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b: on Religion and Philosophy, p. 283-302 (position qui annonce celle \u00ab sensationnelle \u00bb d\u2019Ibn Ru\u0161d, que nous trouverons plus loin). \u2013 Georges Tamer (Friedrich-Alexander-Univ., Erlangen-N\u00fcrnberg), Politisches Denkens in pseudoplatonischen arabischen Schriften, p. 303-335 (les diff\u00e9rents textes connus sous le nom de Naw\u0101m\u012bs [Afl\u0101\u1e6d\u016bn], avec de longs extraits de l\u2019un d\u2019eux).\r\n\r\nDeux autres articles abordent des textes de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme fatimide, o\u00f9 les influences grecques apparaissent, somme toute, n\u00e9gligeables : \u2013 Carmela Baffioni (Univ. degli Studi di Napoli \u201c L\u2019Orientale \u201d), Temporal and Religious Connotations of the \u201c Regal Policy \u201d in the Ikhw\u0101n al-\u1e62af\u0101, p. 337-365 ; \u2013 Paul E. Walker (Univ. of Chicago), \u201c In Praise of al-\u1e24\u0101kim \u201d. Greek Elements in Ismaili Writings on the Imamate, p. 367-392 (longues citations de textes de la 2e g\u00e9n\u00e9ration de du\u02bf\u0101\u2019 ; noter la mise au point en appendice sur les v\u00e9ritables relations de l\u2019isma\u00eflisme avec la falsafa, p. 389 et s.).\r\n\r\nD\u00e9laissant curieusement le grand Avicenne, sur lequel il y eut quand m\u00eame deux \u00ab texts papers \u00bb qui ne figurent pas dans notre volume, celui-ci passe \u00e0 al-\u0120azz\u0101l\u012b : \u2013 Jules Janssens (Katholieke Univ. Leuven), Al-Ghazz\u0101l\u012b\u2019s Political Thought: Elements of Greek Philosophical Influence, p. 393-410.\r\n\r\nLa difficult\u00e9 d\u2019un expos\u00e9 sur la mati\u00e8re tient du fait de l\u2019existence de spuria dans la transmission textuelle d\u2019une \u0153uvre qui scelle, d\u2019une certaine mani\u00e8re, la p\u00e9riode classique. \u00c0 notre avis, l\u2019auteur aurait d\u00fb donner plus d\u2019attention dans son analyse \u00e0 deux facteurs suppl\u00e9mentaires : le public auquel s\u2019adressait le th\u00e9ologien-soufi (philosophes et \u00e9rudits ou bien l\u2019umma en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral) et la chronologie de ses \u00e9crits, vu que la prise du pouvoir par les Sel\u010d\u016bks a \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9terminante dans le changement de ses positions politiques. Cela a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9cemment mis en \u00e9vidence, du moins au niveau de l\u2019imamat et du sultanat, dans le chapitre correspondant de l\u2019ouvrage d\u2019O. Safi (2).\r\n\r\nDans cette \u00e9tude originale, on trouvera, de plus, une analyse circonstanci\u00e9e de la pens\u00e9e de l\u2019\u00ab artisan \u00bb de cette nouvelle soci\u00e9t\u00e9 et de sa culture, Ni\u1e93\u0101m al-Mulk. Ainsi donc, la lacune qu\u2019exprimait P. Crone dans son Introduction (p. 11-12), pour des raisons qui ne peuvent lui \u00eatre imput\u00e9es (emp\u00eachement des sp\u00e9cialistes contact\u00e9s\u2026), pourra \u00eatre partiellement combl\u00e9e. Mais ce serait surtout l\u2019ouvrage de M. Allam qui r\u00e9pondrait le mieux \u00e0 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 ressentie de suivre les d\u00e9veloppements post\u00e9rieurs de la philosophie politique en islam iranien et oriental (3). On notera que l\u2019auteur y analyse, en particulier, la post\u00e9rit\u00e9 du A\u1e2bl\u0101q-i N\u0101\u1e63ir\u012b du polygraphe ism\u0101\u02bf\u012blien N\u0101\u1e63ir al-D\u012bn al-T\u016bs\u012b (1201-1274), qui se situe bien dans la ligne de la pens\u00e9e gr\u00e9co-musulmane.\r\n\r\nMais \u00e0 d\u00e9faut de cet Orient, l\u2019ouvrage poursuit avec les penseurs d\u2019Occident. \u00c0 c\u00f4t\u00e9 de deux expos\u00e9s qui n\u2019y ont pas \u00e9t\u00e9 inclus, trois portent sur les deux plus grands repr\u00e9sentants de cette tradition : \u2013 Maroun Awad (CNRS, Paris ; l\u2019un des co\u00e9diteurs), Does Averroes Have a Philosophy of History?, p. 411-441 ; \u2013 Charles E. Butterworth (Univ. of Maryland, College Park), The Essential Accidents of Human Social Organization in the Muqaddima of Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 443-467 ; \u2013 Abdesselam Cheddadi (Univ. Mohammed V, Rabat), La tradition philosophique et scientifique gr\u00e9co-arabe dans la Muqaddima d\u2019Ibn Khald\u016bn, p. 469-497.\r\n\r\nLes deux derniers articles offrent une perspective comparative quant \u00e0 la r\u00e9ception de la pens\u00e9e antique dans le monoth\u00e9isme \u00ab rival \u00bb (si l\u2019on peut s\u2019exprimer ainsi), qu\u2019il soit de couleur orientale ou occidentale : \u2013 Dimiter G. Angelov (Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo), Plato, Aristotle and \u201c Byzantine Political Philosophy \u201d, p. 499-523 ; \u2013 Cary J. Nederman (Texas A & M Univ.), Imperfect Regimes in the Christian Political Thought of Medieval Europe: from the Fathers to the Fourteenth Century, p. 525-551 (le mot \u00ab Fathers \u00bb est utilis\u00e9 abusivement, dans la mesure o\u00f9 l\u2019unique \u00ab P\u00e8re de l\u2019\u00c9glise \u00bb abord\u00e9 ici est Isidore de S\u00e9ville, le dernier de langue latine !).\r\nLe volume se termine sur une bibliographie d\u00e9taill\u00e9e des sources et des \u00e9tudes cit\u00e9es (p. 553-594) et un index des noms propres, anciens et modernes (p. 595-608). Si l\u2019on consid\u00e8re de plus l\u2019ampleur du sujet et la qualit\u00e9, en m\u00eame temps que les dimensions, des diff\u00e9rentes \u00e9tudes, l\u2019ouvrage se pr\u00e9sente en fait comme un manuel de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence et une bonne introduction \u00e0 la philosophie politique de tradition gr\u00e9co-islamique. Il vient ainsi enrichir et compl\u00e9ter la biblioth\u00e8que qui s\u2019est progressivement accumul\u00e9e, ces derni\u00e8res d\u00e9cennies autour de la question.\r\nAdel Sidarus\r\nUniversit\u00e9 d\u2019Evora","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vUA05cpGz8q7urg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":303,"pubplace":"Beyrouth","publisher":"Biblioth\u00e8que Orientale - Dar El-Machreq","series":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"57","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on the Place of the Philosopher in the City (In Epictetum chap. 32)"]}
Title | Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 245-274 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Harari, Orna |
Editor(s) | Brad Inwood |
Translator(s) |
The ancient commentators’ approach to Aristotle’s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (διαφορά) or a character (χαρακτήρ) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (ἀπόνευσις). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle’s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus’ construal of Aristotle’s category of relatives. In the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers’ mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof. Corresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle’s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus’ distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations. The first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes. Plotinus’ Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7). How to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius’ and the other late commentators’ discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius’ discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates. In the second section, I turn to Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates. In light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius’ discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination. In conclusion, I show that Simplicius’ conception of relations originates in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides and in Damascius’ account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius’ motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1145","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1145,"authors_free":[{"id":1718,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":169,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Harari, Orna","free_first_name":"Orna","free_last_name":"Harari","norm_person":{"id":169,"first_name":"Orna","last_name":"Harari","full_name":"Harari Orna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2804,"entry_id":1145,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brad Inwood","free_first_name":"Brad","free_last_name":"Inwood","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"},"abstract":"The ancient commentators\u2019 approach to Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives in Categories 7 is shaped by the conception that prevailed in later antiquity, in which relatives are composites of a substrate, i.e. an attribute that belongs to the other categories, and a relation. Simplicius shares this conception with the other commentators, but he formulates it in different terms. He calls the substrate on which relational attributes supervene a difference (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac) or a character (\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1) and the supervening relational attribute an inclination (\u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2). In this study, I attempt to clarify the significance of this terminology, arguing that through the notion of inclination Simplicius answers the question of the unity of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives, as formulated in Plotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9. To expound this contention, I outline Plotinus\u2019 construal of Aristotle\u2019s category of relatives.\r\n\r\nIn the opening paragraph of his discussion of relatives in Categories 7, Aristotle presents two lists of examples; the first contains greater and double, the second contains states, conditions, perception, knowledge, and position (6a38-b3). Although Aristotle does not explicitly distinguish these lists, they seem to exemplify two different notions of relatives. The first list seems to contain relational attributes whose bearers possess them merely due to their mutual dependence, whereas the second list seems to contain attributes which, in addition to arising from their bearers\u2019 mutual dependence, are internal qualitative states thereof.\r\n\r\nCorresponding to this distinction, Plotinus in Ennead 6.1.9 distinguishes two types of relational attributes: those that come about by participation and those that result from an activity. In so doing, he associates Aristotle\u2019s account of relatives with the question of the reality of relations, which does not appear in Categories 7 but arises from the Stoic notion of relatives. Consequently, Plotinus\u2019 distinction of these types of relatives leads to two different accounts of the reality of relations.\r\n\r\nThe first account, in which relational attributes are acquired by participation, secures the reality of relations by preventing their reduction to their substrates. By this account, relational attributes are not mere dispositions of their substrates, as the Stoics hold, but exist over and above their substrates. The second account, in which relational attributes are activities of their substrates, secures the reality of relations by grounding them in the inner nature of their substrates. It thereby confronts the contention found in Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics N 1 (1088u29-35) and in Sextus Empiricus (M. 8.455-8) that relational attributes are ontologically inferior because their substrates do not undergo an intrinsic change when they acquire and lose their relational attributes.\r\n\r\nPlotinus\u2019 Ennead 6.1.6-9 leaves this dilemma unsettled. On the one hand, he considers active relations less problematic than relations by participation (6.1.6.13-18); on the other hand, he argues that the unity of the category of relatives is secured if relations are considered to be forms acquired by participation (6.1.9.25-7).\r\n\r\nHow to distinguish relations from their relata without jeopardizing the subject-attribute scheme remains an open question. In substantiating my interpretation, I analyze in the first section Simplicius\u2019 and the other late commentators\u2019 discussions of the reality of relations. I show that Simplicius\u2019 discussion gives rise to the formulation of a precise distinction between relations and their substrates, whereas the other late commentators stress the dependence of relations on their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn the second section, I turn to Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic distinction between relatives and relatively disposed attributes, showing that, despite the distinction between relations and their substrates, Simplicius follows the other commentators in stressing the dependence of relational attributes on the inner nature of their substrates.\r\n\r\nIn light of these conclusions, in the third section I seek to show how Simplicius succeeds in accommodating the distinction between relations and their substrates with his view that relations depend on their substrates. Here, I analyze Simplicius\u2019 discussion of relational change and show that it facilitates the integration of these two accounts and that it underlies the notion of inclination.\r\n\r\nIn conclusion, I show that Simplicius\u2019 conception of relations originates in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Parmenides and in Damascius\u2019 account of the relation between the higher and lower grades of reality in Neoplatonic metaphysics. This discussion lends further support to my attempt to articulate the notion of inclination and offers a possible explanation of Simplicius\u2019 motivation for deviating from the stance of the other late commentators. [introduction p. 245-248]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1145,"section_of":1602,"pages":"245-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1602,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Inwood2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"One of the leading series on ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy presents outstanding new work in the field. The volumes feature original essays on a wide range of themes and problems in all periods of ancient philosophy, from its earliest beginnings to the threshold of the middle ages. It is anonymously peer-reviewed and appears twice a year.\r\n\r\nThe series was founded in 1983, and in 2016 published its 50th volume. The series format was chosen so that it might include essays of more substantial length than is customarily allowed in journals, as well as critical essays on books of distinctive importance. Past editors include Julia Annas, Christopher Taylor, David Sedley, Brad Inwood, and Victor Caston. The current editor, as of July 2022, is Rachana Kamtekar. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PleABvrSeQ8LVfR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1602,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"XXXVII","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1145,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"37","issue":"","pages":"245-274"}},"sort":["Simplicius on the Reality of Relations and Relational Change"]}
Title | Simplicius on the Void |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Körperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Spätantike. Corporeità nella filosofia tardoantica |
Pages | 231-255 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Nikulin, Dmitri |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Taormina, Daniela Patrizia , Walter, Denis |
Translator(s) |
The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius’ Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle’s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle’s arguments, which abound in subtle observations, Simplicius comes up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed to the void, demonstrating the impossible consequences of its acceptance. Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1538","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1538,"authors_free":[{"id":2683,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":568,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","free_first_name":"Dmitri","free_last_name":"Nikulin","norm_person":{"id":568,"first_name":"Dmitri","last_name":"Nikulin","full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/17302503X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2687,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2688,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":431,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","free_first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","free_last_name":"Taormina","norm_person":{"id":431,"first_name":"Daniela Patrizia","last_name":"Taormina","full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305185","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2689,"entry_id":1538,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":569,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Walter, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"Walter","norm_person":{"id":569,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"Walter","full_name":"Walter, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1127658751","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Void","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Void"},"abstract":"The essay discusses the treatment of the void in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the cenrtral chapters of Book 4 of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In a close reading and explanation of Aristotle\u2019s arguments, which abound in subtle observations, Simplicius comes up with several original interpretations regarding the nature of the negativity attributed to the void, demonstrating the impossible consequences of its acceptance. Following Aristotle, Simplicius distinguishes two kinds of the void, that between and outside bodies, and that interspersed with bodies. Locomotion through the void as an imputed place of motion is impossible, because there is no sufficient reason either for motion in a particular direction or for rest, since the void in its negativity allows for no distinctions, and thus for no natural places. A number of absurdities also follow from the acceptance of the void as scattered in bodies. The void is therefore out of place in the cosmos ontologically, mathematically, and physically. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kdYRjbp22O1ftpX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":568,"full_name":"Nikulin, Dmitri","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":431,"full_name":"Taormina, Daniela Patrizia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":569,"full_name":"Walter, Denis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1538,"section_of":1539,"pages":"231-255","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1539,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike. Corporeit\u00e0 nella filosofia tardoantica","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Horn2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"In diesem Sammelband wird die Idee des K\u00f6rpers und der K\u00f6rperlichkeit in der Philosophie der Sp\u00e4tantike untersucht. Dazu werden Fragen der Ontologie, der Mathematik, der Physik, der Astronomie, der Biologie, der Anthropologie, der Politik, der Theologie und der \u00c4sthetik behandelt. Die Bedeutung des Themas ergibt sich sowohl aus seiner historischen Relevanz (f\u00fcr die Bildende Kunst, die Literatur, die Fachwissenschaften, die Religion und die allgemeine Kulturgeschichte) als auch aufgrund seiner philosophischen Wichtigkeit. Vom philosophischen Standpunkt betrachtet enth\u00e4lt die sp\u00e4tantike Reflexion \u00fcber K\u00f6rperlichkeit eine beeindruckende F\u00fclle an Bedeutungen, die in diesem Band diskutiert werden.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWbfOvt30jR6Y1U","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1539,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":"Academia philosophical studies","volume":"71","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on the Void"]}
Title | Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Symbolae Berolinenses. Für Dieter Harlfinger |
Pages | 187-199 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Berger, Friederike , Brockmann, Christian , De Gregorio, Giuseppe , Ghisu, Maria Irene , Kotzabassi, Sofia , Noack, Beate |
Translator(s) |
Gewiss, ein lückenloser Beweis der Ursprünglichkeit der Anführungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn für die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht möglich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so häufigen und eindeutigen Anführungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. Möglicherweise ließe sich dieselbe Forderung mit ähnlicher Berechtigung auch für andere Zeichen geltend machen. Jedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten spätantiker Zeit Zeichen überliefert sein können, die nicht nur für das korrekte Verständnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel späterer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschließend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz ähnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert: "Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den frühesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, Sätze oder Satzteile oder gar Wörter durch größere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion möchte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird." [conclusion p. 196-197] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"722","_score":null,"_source":{"id":722,"authors_free":[{"id":1076,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1077,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":361,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Berger, Friederike","free_first_name":"Friederike","free_last_name":"Berger","norm_person":{"id":361,"first_name":"Friederike","last_name":"Berger","full_name":"Berger, Friederike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1216192375","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2415,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2417,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":474,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"De Gregorio","norm_person":{"id":474,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"De Gregorio","full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1056147482","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2419,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":475,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","free_first_name":"Maria Irene","free_last_name":"Ghisu","norm_person":{"id":475,"first_name":"Maria Irene","last_name":"Ghisu","full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2421,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":476,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","free_first_name":"Sofia","free_last_name":"Kotzabassi","norm_person":{"id":476,"first_name":"Sofia","last_name":"Kotzabassi","full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030288763","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2423,"entry_id":722,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":477,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Noack, Beate","free_first_name":"Beate","free_last_name":"Noack","norm_person":{"id":477,"first_name":"Beate","last_name":"Noack","full_name":"Noack, Beate","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1223988120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"},"abstract":"Gewiss, ein l\u00fcckenloser Beweis der Urspr\u00fcnglichkeit der Anf\u00fchrungszeichen im Mardanus 226, geschweige denn f\u00fcr die Zeichensetzung im Allgemeinen, ist hiermit nicht gelungen und war in Anbetracht der Quellenlage auch gar nicht m\u00f6glich. Dennoch, die aus diesen Beobachtungen zu ziehende Schlussfolgerung ist, dass die in mittelalterlichen Handschriften so h\u00e4ufigen und eindeutigen Anf\u00fchrungszeichen keineswegs im Namen der Textkritik ignoriert werden sollten. M\u00f6glicherweise lie\u00dfe sich dieselbe Forderung mit \u00e4hnlicher Berechtigung auch f\u00fcr andere Zeichen geltend machen.\r\n\r\nJedenfalls sollte man ernsthaft in Betracht ziehen, dass gerade in Abschriften aus Texten sp\u00e4tantiker Zeit Zeichen \u00fcberliefert sein k\u00f6nnen, die nicht nur f\u00fcr das korrekte Verst\u00e4ndnis eines Textes unverzichtbar sind, sondern auch dem Autor selbst, und nicht irgendeinem gelehrten Schreiber viel sp\u00e4terer Zeit, zu verdanken sind. Es sei daher abschlie\u00dfend an dieser Stelle und achtzig Jahre nach dem Erscheinen der Grundz\u00fcge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde an einen ganz \u00e4hnlichen Hinweis Ulrich Wilckens erinnert:\r\n\r\n\"Einige Interpunktionszeichen wird man in den Urkunden selten finden ... Dagegen war es von den fr\u00fchesten Zeiten an eine weitverbreitete Sitte, S\u00e4tze oder Satzteile oder gar W\u00f6rter durch gr\u00f6\u00dfere oder kleinere Spatien zu trennen. Auf diese in den Editionen noch viel zu wenig zum Ausdruck kommende Interpunktion m\u00f6chte ich die Papyrusleser ganz besonders aufmerksam machen, da durch sie uns oft die authentische Interpretation des Schreibers an die Hand gegeben wird.\" [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/cjMqjU5dghJg6Mi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":361,"full_name":"Berger, Friederike","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":474,"full_name":"De Gregorio, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":475,"full_name":"Ghisu, Maria Irene","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":476,"full_name":"Kotzabassi, Sofia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":477,"full_name":"Noack, Beate","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":722,"section_of":353,"pages":"187-199","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":353,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Symbolae Berolinenses. F\u00fcr Dieter Harlfinger","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Berger1993","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WynC9SYoNF55LD8","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":353,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur \u00dcberlieferung des Anf\u00fchrungszeichens"]}
Title | Simplicius ’ Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories |
Pages | 9-30 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Michael Chase |
Editor(s) | Lloyd A. Newton |
Translator(s) |
Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance of Simplicius ’ commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas and al Fārābī. Due in part to Simplicius’ infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic project of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences between them. Interestingly, though, while both al-Fārābī and Aquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle, they differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy subordinate to theology, while al-Fārābī follows Porphyry, who views philosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1584,"authors_free":[{"id":2779,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Michael Chase","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":null},{"id":2780,"entry_id":1584,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lloyd A. Newton ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West"},"abstract":"Michael Chase begins the volume by demonstrating the importance\r\nof Simplicius \u2019 commentary for two key medieval thinkers, Aquinas\r\nand al F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b. Due in part to Simplicius\u2019 infl uence, and particularly his commentary on the Categories, both fi gures adopt the Neoplatonic\r\nproject of reconciling Plato and Aristotle, in spite of the apparent differences\r\nbetween them. Interestingly, though, while both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and\r\nAquinas ultimately agree on the harmony between Plato and Aristotle,\r\nthey differ in that Aquinas follows Iamblichus, who makes philosophy\r\nsubordinate to theology, while al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b follows Porphyry, who views\r\nphilosophy as alone suffi cient for beatitude. [Introduction, by Newton]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1584,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-30","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius \u2019 Commentary on the Categories in the Medieval West"]}
Title | Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1989 |
Published in | Ionian Philosophy |
Pages | 369-374 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sylvestre, Maria Luisa |
Editor(s) | Boudouris, Konstantin, J. |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1385","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1385,"authors_free":[{"id":2137,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":327,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","free_first_name":"Maria Luisa","free_last_name":"Sylvestre","norm_person":{"id":327,"first_name":"Maria Luisa","last_name":"Sylvestre","full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2138,"entry_id":1385,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":328,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin, J.","free_first_name":"Konstantin, J.","free_last_name":"Boudouris","norm_person":{"id":328,"first_name":"Konstantin J.","last_name":"Boudouris,","full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1041800053","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"This text discusses Simplicius' testimony concerning Anaxagoras and the authenticity of the fragments attributed to Anaxagoras, which are mostly preserved by Simplicius. While scholars have debated the authenticity of Simplicius' fragments, the author believes in Simplicius' faithfulness to the true doctrine of Anaxagoras. However, the author notes that Simplicius wrote about a thousand years after Anaxagoras, was a pupil of Proclus, and a neo-Platonist himself. The text highlights the importance of comparing Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle with the corresponding text of Aristotle to understand his personal interpretation of Anaxagoras. Finally, the text briefly discusses Anaxagoras' concept of nous and its interpretation by Plato, Aristotle, and Simplicius. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gJ3DXudfcNprrxr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":327,"full_name":"Sylvestre, Maria Luisa","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":328,"full_name":"Boudouris, Konstantin J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1385,"section_of":238,"pages":"369-374","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":238,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ionian Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Boudouris1989","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"\u2018The articles in this volume are, in the main, the texts of papers read either in full or in part at the First International Conference on Greek Philosophy (Samos 1988)\u2019 (from the editor\u2019s Preface). Appropriately to such a first conference, it was devoted to the beginnings of philosophy in Greece and, more specifically, in Ionia itself. The volume includes forty- seven papers dealing with all the major figures of Ionian philosophy, from the Milesians to Anaxagoras. Pythagoras, the most illustrious native of Samos, and the Pythagoreans (technically considered an \u2018Italian\u2019 sect, but included by courtesy in the theme of the conference), attract the attention of seven scholars. The other notable Samian, Melissus, is the subject of only one contribution, by D. Furley, possibly because Melissus is usually\r\nBOOK REVIEWS 141classified by the doxographers as an Eleatic. Xenophanes of Colophon is dealt with in five of the articles. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the papers deal with Heraclitus of Ephesus, just across the water from Samos. Among those excluded from this book are the Italians Parmenides, Zeno and Empedocles, and the atomists of Abdera\" [Review Scolnicov]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9oSZ8qRrH4iopVv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":238,"pubplace":"Athen","publisher":"International Association for Greek Philosophy and Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture","series":"Studies in Greek Philosophy","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius' Testimony Concerning Anaxagoras"]}
Title | Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius‘ polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition |
Pages | 97-123 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus’ ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or ‘Demiurge.’ Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrotêtes) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire. My aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s De caelo. It is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius’ and his reader’s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus’ spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius’ attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious. A correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle’s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RJi3pyBneebP54s |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"712","_score":null,"_source":{"id":712,"authors_free":[{"id":1062,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2012,"entry_id":712,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens"},"abstract":"I am not entirely comfortable finding myself introducing a discordant note into a collection intended to celebrate the refreshing originality of Philoponus\u2019 ideas. I shall, however, be speaking for Simplicius, vindictive pagan that he was, and shall hope to be an effective counterweight to what is said in other chapters. I shall be talking within the framework of a general interpretation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo. The commentary is an exegetical work undertaken as a paean to the Creator or \u2018Demiurge.\u2019 Its basic theory on the physical structure of celestial matter is that this matter is a combination of the superior parts (akrot\u00eates) of the four elements, dominated by the purely luminous superior part of fire.\r\n\r\nMy aim will be to show how this theory can be seen as a reaction to the theories of John Philoponus. Philoponus had turned to the Timaeus for support in his Contra Aristotelem and had attacked the Aristotelian doctrine that the heavens are made of a fifth element and that the world is eternal. Well before Copernicus, Philoponus denied that there was any substantial difference between the heavens and the sublunary world. In his reply to the Contra Aristotelem, Simplicius reaffirms the divinity, the transcendence, and the eternal nature of the heavens. His exegesis aims to connect, rather than contrast, Plato\u2019s Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s De caelo.\r\n\r\nIt is, moreover, a religious act, a spiritual exercise designed to turn the soul (both Simplicius\u2019 and his reader\u2019s) towards the Demiurge. This conversion is our initiation into the grandeur of the universe and of the heavens, and his description of the physical nature of the heavens is one of the most valuable aspects of the revelation. Those readers still under Philoponus\u2019 spell cannot achieve this revelation until they have undergone a preliminary act of purification, which is the refutation of the arguments of Philoponus\u2019 Contra Aristotelem. In this way, Simplicius\u2019 attack is directed at a target that is simultaneously philosophical and religious.\r\n\r\nA correct reading and interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo leads not only to the acquisition of intellectual knowledge but also, and above all, to our elevation through thought (a thought that we live) to the whole universe and to the Demiurge. It is a form of prayer addressed to them. The sacrilegious blasphemy of the Christian Philoponus is countered by the Neoplatonist liturgy, a rightful celebration of their God. [introduction p. 97-98]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RJi3pyBneebP54s","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":712,"section_of":184,"pages":"97-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":184,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science. Second Edition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1987c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Richard Sorabji is the editor of a vast and growing number of translations of ancient\r\ncommentaries on Aristotle and the editor of several excellent collections of studies on the\r\nAristotelian tradition. Philoponus, a 6th century Christian thinker who was originally trained as\r\na Neoplatonist, is best remembered today for his attack on Aristotle's 'physics'; his influence on\r\nlater philosophers and scientists and his role in the reevaluation of Aristotelian science and\r\nnatural philosophy are indeed remarkable. The second edition of Philoponus and the Rejection\r\nof Aristotelian Science includes a new two-part introduction which offers a survey of the\r\nrapidly expanding scholarship on Philoponus and of recent archeological discoveries (such as\r\nthe lecture rooms of the 6th century Alexandrian school), as well as new insights into the\r\ninteraction between Greek paganism and Christianity in connection with Philoponus and his\r\nmilieu. The twelve chapters included in this collection are written by very prominent scholars\r\nand tackle topics such as Philoponus' corollaries on space and time, the differences between his\r\ntheological views (e.g. on the three hypostases) and the prevailing dogmas of the time, the\r\nrelation between his theory about impetus and later treatments of impetus and related\r\nconcepts in a number of Arab thinkers and in Galileo. This collection is one of the most reliable\r\nand wide-ranging introductions to Philoponus' views and influence, and those interested in late\r\nancient philosophy and its interactions with Christian thought will find this to be a most\r\nvaluable resource. [Review by Tiberiu Popa]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJSIbOOK7lIAB00","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":184,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London","series":"BICS Supplement","volume":"103","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius' polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius\u2018 polemical writings against John Philoponus: From invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendence of the heavens"]}
Title | Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle’s De Anima |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 91-112 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes two kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, the reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without saying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla tonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, with which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often concerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to our understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself and also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a text at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this paper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be found in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this particular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on what will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in teresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius works in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the way in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech niques of interpretation. [p. 91] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"795","_score":null,"_source":{"id":795,"authors_free":[{"id":1173,"entry_id":795,"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}},{"id":2441,"entry_id":795,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic exposition of classical Greek philosophy includes \r\ntwo kinds of reinterpretation. The first and most basic is, of course, \r\nthe reading of Plato himself as a Neoplatonist. This is, it goes without \r\nsaying, to be found primarily in all the independent works of Neopla\u00ad\r\ntonism, as well as in commentaries on works of Plato. The other, \r\nwith which readers of the Aristotelian commentators are more often \r\nconcerned, is the Platonization of Aristotle. The latter is crucial to \r\nour understanding of any Neoplatonist commentator, both in himself \r\nand also as an authority on Aristotle. And since we are dealing with a \r\ntext at least superficially based on Aristotle, I shall devote most of this \r\npaper to some of the somewhat strange interpretations of him to be \r\nfound in Book 1 of the De anima commentary. At the same time this \r\nparticular book also offers an opportunity, which the commentary on \r\nwhat will have seemed to him the more obviously philosophically in\u00ad\r\nteresting parts of the De anima does not1, to see how Simplicius \r\nworks in the area of Plato interpretation, and we shall look at the \r\nway in which Plato and Aristotle are both subjected to similar tech\u00ad\r\nniques of interpretation. [p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b0MGk7ACSQL6CCE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":795,"section_of":214,"pages":"91-112","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius(?) on the first book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima"]}
Title | Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 69-99 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1320","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1320,"authors_free":[{"id":1954,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2376,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"},"abstract":"This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QL5VZHREOe1cXap","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1320,"section_of":289,"pages":"69-99","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"]}
Title | Simplicius: Corollarium de loco |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1979 |
Published in | L'Astronomie dans l'antiquité classique. Actes du Colloque tenu à l'Université de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21–23 Octobre, 1977 |
Pages | 143-161 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Aujac, Germaine , Soubiran, Jean |
Translator(s) |
En conclusion : La définition aristotélicienne du lieu comme « première limite immobile de l'enveloppant » tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est enveloppé par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'« expérience » et avec d’autres exigences du système (la dignité du mouvement circulaire uniforme et éternel convient à la substance céleste). Proclus, sur la base de la problématique aristotélicienne, interprète l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situé en lui comme une compénétration totale de l’un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sphère corporelle de lumière pure en coïncidence parfaite avec la sphère cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui. Damascius propose une solution plus métaphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'où procèdent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement. Proclus et Damascius, chacun à leur manière, établissent donc : que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ; que le Monde se meut localement. Ils triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pensée d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":510,"authors_free":[{"id":707,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":708,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":183,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Aujac, Germaine","free_first_name":"Germaine","free_last_name":"Aujac","norm_person":{"id":183,"first_name":"Germaine","last_name":"Aujac","full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132761629","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":709,"entry_id":510,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":184,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Soubiran, Jean","free_first_name":"Jean","free_last_name":"Soubiran","norm_person":{"id":184,"first_name":"Jean","last_name":"Soubiran","full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124279694","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"En conclusion : La d\u00e9finition aristot\u00e9licienne du lieu comme \u00ab premi\u00e8re limite immobile de l'enveloppant \u00bb tente de concilier deux exigences contradictoires : le lieu est une enveloppe et il est immobile. Aristote est contraint de dire que le Monde n'est pas en un lieu, puisqu'il n'est envelopp\u00e9 par rien : s'il n'est nulle part, il ne peut non plus se mouvoir localement, ce qui est en contradiction avec l'\u00ab exp\u00e9rience \u00bb et avec d\u2019autres exigences du syst\u00e8me (la dignit\u00e9 du mouvement circulaire uniforme et \u00e9ternel convient \u00e0 la substance c\u00e9leste).\r\n\r\n Proclus, sur la base de la probl\u00e9matique aristot\u00e9licienne, interpr\u00e8te l'enveloppement par le lieu du corps situ\u00e9 en lui comme une comp\u00e9n\u00e9tration totale de l\u2019un et de l'autre. Sa solution est plus physique et plus cosmologique que celle de Damascius : le lieu est une sph\u00e8re corporelle de lumi\u00e8re pure en co\u00efncidence parfaite avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique. Le lieu est immobile, tandis que l'Univers se meut en lui.\r\n\r\n Damascius propose une solution plus m\u00e9taphysique : le lieu est la mesure (incorporelle, quoique sensible) de la position. L'Univers a un lieu fixe, son lieu essentiel, d'o\u00f9 proc\u00e8dent les lieux successifs qui sont les siens au cours de son mouvement.\r\n\r\nProclus et Damascius, chacun \u00e0 leur mani\u00e8re, \u00e9tablissent donc :\r\n\r\n que le Monde a un lieu (fixe) ;\r\n que le Monde se meut localement.\r\n\r\nIls triomphent ainsi des apories dans lesquelles s'engageait la pens\u00e9e d'Aristote. [conclusion p. 161]","btype":2,"date":"1979","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2CpsO1R1mVMqjay","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":183,"full_name":"Aujac, Germaine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":184,"full_name":"Soubiran, Jean","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":510,"section_of":140,"pages":"143-161","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":140,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"L'Astronomie dans l'antiquit\u00e9 classique. Actes du Colloque tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 de Toulouse-le-Mirail, 21\u201323 Octobre, 1977","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Aujac\/Soubiran1979","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1979","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1979","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TPeLfUa6KvbM1BN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":140,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Les Belles Lettres","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Anciennes","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius: Corollarium de loco"]}
Title | Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 148-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own. The diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well. But even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy. Some of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"487","_score":null,"_source":{"id":487,"authors_free":[{"id":665,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":666,"entry_id":487,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"},"abstract":"What conclusions can now be drawn? It is time to say that I do not think Aristotle reached the point of consciously thinking that extension would play the role of prime matter. It took the Neoplatonist Simplicius to interpret him that way, motivated by reasons of his own.\r\n\r\nThe diffuseness of extension will have seemed important to Simplicius because it puts prime matter where it should be, at the opposite extreme from the unity of the One. He knew that Plato had been taken as identifying prime matter with space or with other kinds of extension, and, although he disagreed, he thought he found the justification for such an interpretation of Aristotle at least in Phys. 4,2, if not in the Metaphysics as well.\r\n\r\nBut even if Simplicius' interpretation does not represent Aristotle's conscious thought, it opens new vistas. For one thing, I believe that extension would fit with Aristotle's conception of prime matter, and fit better than anything else that has been proposed. Furthermore, in considering how it would fit, we have been forced to consider a network of interlocking parts of Aristotle's philosophy.\r\n\r\nSome of the parts would require modification if extension were to be openly acknowledged as playing the role of prime matter, but the resulting modifications would yield a coherent view. Finally, views of the same general sort, which treat body as some kind of extension endowed with properties, have recurred through the ages, for example in Descartes, in Newton, and in twentieth-century physics. [conclusion p. 162-163]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h6HONd1UnE1D8Vw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":487,"section_of":171,"pages":"148-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension"]}
Title | Simplicius’ Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae' |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 269-291 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | Brockmann, Christian , Deckers, Daniel , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1576","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1576,"authors_free":[{"id":2752,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2753,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2754,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2755,"entry_id":1576,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jsGhr81iLqtnRuC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1576,"section_of":1573,"pages":"269-291","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Categorial Analysis of 'differentiae'"]}
Title | Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 531–540 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"]}
Title | Simplicius’ response to Philoponus’ attacks on Aristotle’s Physics 8.1. |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 8.1-5’ |
Pages | 1-16 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Chase, Michael , Share, Michael |
Translator(s) |
The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius’ usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius’ commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of "Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World," written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius’ "Commentary on Physics," together with his "Commentary on the de Caelo," provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"767","_score":null,"_source":{"id":767,"authors_free":[{"id":1131,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}},{"id":2326,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2327,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2328,"entry_id":767,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1.","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."},"abstract":"The section devoted to Physics 8.1 is one of the most extensive and interesting in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8. On the one hand, it contains Simplicius\u2019 usual meticulous comments on the text of Aristotle, who here begins his demonstration of the eternity of motion. As is his wont, the Stagirite starts out with a critical survey of the views of his predecessors, which gives Simplicius the opportunity to quote and explain a number of important fragments of Presocratic philosophers (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, the Atomists, Diogenes of Apollonia, and especially Empedocles). But the bulk of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Physics 8.1 consists of one of his famous digressions, in which he quotes and attempts to refute several fragments from Book 6 of \"Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World,\" written by his Christian rival, John Philoponus, sometime in the 530s. Many of the arguments of both Philoponus and Simplicius concerning time, eternity, and the nature of the infinite are of considerable philosophical importance, as a number of recent studies have shown. Quite apart from the intrinsic interest of the various arguments mobilized by both interlocutors, however, Book 8.1 of Simplicius\u2019 \"Commentary on Physics,\" together with his \"Commentary on the de Caelo,\" provide us with vitally important documents concerning the conflict between pagans and Christians in the second quarter of the sixth century AD. [p. 1]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4tkAKmiX8jOeqAf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":767,"section_of":121,"pages":"1-16","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":121,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 8.1-5\u2019","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bodn\u00e1r\/Chase\/Share2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"In this commentary on Aristotle Physics book eight, chapters one to five, the sixth-century philosopher Simplicius quotes and explains important fragments of the Presocratic philosophers, provides the fragments of his Christian opponent Philoponus' Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, and makes extensive use of the lost commentary of Aristotle's leading defender, Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nThis volume contains an English translation of Simplicius' important commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, explanatory notes and a bibliography. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/LJFtY7RnI5jMqhW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":121,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 response to Philoponus\u2019 attacks on Aristotle\u2019s Physics 8.1."]}
Title | Simplikios, Neplatoniker |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1927 |
Published in | Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus. Zweite Reihe, Fünfter Halbband: Silacenis bis Sparsus |
Pages | 204-213 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Praechter, Karl |
Editor(s) | Wissowa, Georg , Kroll, Wilhelm , Mittelhaus, Karl |
Translator(s) |
Eintrag zu Simplikios in der Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKvSYjVl9KIu03S |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1380","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1380,"authors_free":[{"id":2124,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":293,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Praechter, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Praechter","norm_person":{"id":293,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Praechter","full_name":"Praechter, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116278609","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2128,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":297,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wissowa, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"Wissowa","norm_person":{"id":297,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"Wissowa","full_name":"Wissowa, Georg","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117413755","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2129,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":300,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm ","free_first_name":"Wilhelm","free_last_name":"Kroll","norm_person":{"id":300,"first_name":"Wilhelm","last_name":"Kroll","full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116552581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2130,"entry_id":1380,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":301,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","free_first_name":"Karl","free_last_name":"Mittelhaus","norm_person":{"id":301,"first_name":"Karl","last_name":"Mittelhaus","full_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11706355X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios, Neplatoniker","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios, Neplatoniker"},"abstract":"Eintrag zu Simplikios in der Paulys Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft","btype":2,"date":"1927","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKvSYjVl9KIu03S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":293,"full_name":"Praechter, Karl","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":297,"full_name":"Wissowa, Georg","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":300,"full_name":"Kroll, Wilhelm","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":301,"full_name":"Mittelhaus, Karl","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1380,"section_of":1381,"pages":"204-213","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1381,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Paulys Realencyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung begonnen von Georg Wissowa unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgenossen, herausgegeben von Wilhelm Kroll und Karl Mittelhaus. Zweite Reihe, F\u00fcnfter Halbband: Silacenis bis Sparsus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1927","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GO1BxyFsBoAXlMx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1381,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Alfred Druckenm\u00fcller Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplikios, Neplatoniker"]}
Title | Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato’s Cratylus and Aristotle’s De Interpretatione |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 353-366 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | van den Berg, Robbert Maarten |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Ammonius, the son of Hermeias († between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412–485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he ‘owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.’ How much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus’ course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius’ originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle’s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as ‘names’ in this paper. One of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus’ lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus’ text at one point on the basis of Ammonius’ commentary. In this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius’ concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. §10, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat. Ammonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle’s idea of what a name is differs from Plato’s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous œuvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius’ interpretation of Cratylus’ position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position. Once we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius’ commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1532","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1532,"authors_free":[{"id":2669,"entry_id":1532,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"van den Berg, Robbert Maarten ","free_first_name":"Robbert Maarten ","free_last_name":"van den Berg","norm_person":null},{"id":2670,"entry_id":1532,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione","main_title":{"title":"Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione"},"abstract":"Ammonius, the son of Hermeias (\u2020 between 517 and 526), was not a prolific author, unlike his teacher Proclus (412\u2013485). Whereas the latter wrote up to seven hundred lines a day, the only large work that Ammonius ever wrote was his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione. Remarkably enough, for someone whose entire reputation rests on his study of Aristotle, he does not claim any credit for its content. His work, he writes at the beginning, is a record of the interpretations of his divine teacher Proclus. If he too is able to add anything to the clarification of the book, he \u2018owes a great thanks to the god of eloquence.\u2019\r\n\r\nHow much did the god of eloquence allow Ammonius to add? No other sources of Proclus\u2019 course on the Int. survive. Yet in one case we are able to study Ammonius\u2019 originality or the lack of it: his discussion of Aristotle\u2019s views on onomata, a group of words that corresponds roughly speaking to our nouns and which I shall refer to as \u2018names\u2019 in this paper.\r\n\r\nOne of the major issues in Greek linguistic thought throughout Antiquity was the relation between names and their objects. Does there exist some sort of natural relation between names and their objects, or are names just a matter of convention? Plato had discussed the question in his Cratylus, in which he had made a certain Hermogenes the spokesman of the conventionalist position and the eponymous character Cratylus an adherent of the naturalist position. In the end, Socrates forces both Hermogenes and Cratylus to admit that names are partly by nature and partly by convention, hence that they are both right and wrong. Many scholars, both ancient and modern, believe that in the first chapters of Int. Aristotle responded at least in part to the views expressed in the Cratylus. As it so happens, an excerpt of Proclus\u2019 lecture notes on that Platonic dialogue has survived. A first reading of the two commentaries seems indeed to suggest that there is a substantial overlap between them on the relevant issue, even though Proclus may at times be critical of Aristotle. As we shall see, this apparent correspondence has even inspired an attempt to emend Proclus\u2019 text at one point on the basis of Ammonius\u2019 commentary.\r\n\r\nIn this paper, I will argue that in fact Ammonius\u2019 concept of onoma is significantly different from that of Proclus. As Proclus had observed, but as Ammonius tried to downplay, Aristotle had been arguing against Plato. For Proclus, this did not pose any particular problem. Like all Neoplatonists, Ammonius included, he was convinced that the divinely inspired Plato had to be right. If Aristotle chose to deviate from Plato and the truth, that was his problem. Proclus sets Socrates up as a judge (in Crat. \u00a710, p. 4,12) between the conventionalist Hermogenes and the naturalist Cratylus, a judge who shows that they are both right and wrong. Aristotle is explicitly counted among the partisans of Hermogenes. On the whole, one can say that Proclus is very critical of Aristotle in in Crat.\r\n\r\nAmmonius, on the other hand, wanted to show that Plato and Aristotle were in complete harmony with each other, even where this is not evident. He too presents Socrates as a mediator between Hermogenes and Cratylus (in Int. 37,1), but this time Aristotle is not grouped together with Hermogenes but presented as being of the same mind as Socrates. As we shall see, Ammonius, when discussing the nature of names, takes his point of departure from Aristotle. Since Aristotle\u2019s idea of what a name is differs from Plato\u2019s, Ammonius will arrive at a concept of name that is fundamentally different from that of Proclus, who takes Plato as his starting point. On the assumption that Proclus, who for the most part appears to be quite consistent throughout his enormous \u0153uvre, did not radically change his views when lecturing on Int., we may thus infer from this that Ammonius was not slavishly following Proclus. This becomes all the more apparent in the case of Ammonius\u2019 interpretation of Cratylus\u2019 position in the dialogue. In order to harmonize Plato with Aristotle, Ammonius offers a rather original, albeit not very convincing, reading of that position.\r\n\r\nOnce we have established the fundamental difference between the two of them, we will be better able to explain a phenomenon to which Richard Sorabji has recently drawn attention: the absence of any interest in divine names in Ammonius\u2019 commentary. Finally, this case study will allow us to make a more general observation about the relation between the Athenian and Alexandrian commentators. [introduction p. 353-355]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U7I3LYIXJL83A4Y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1532,"section_of":1419,"pages":"353-366","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Smoothing over the Differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato\u2019s Cratylus and Aristotle\u2019s De Interpretatione"]}
Title | Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1981 |
Published in | Neoplatonism and Christian thought |
Pages | 45-53 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verbeke, Gérard |
Editor(s) | O'Meara, Dominic J. |
Translator(s) |
The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle’s Physics is particularly inter esting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre vious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always faithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not that of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to Aristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar distortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance and fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary of Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any case, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where the author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own ideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with the help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already noticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute Aristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of Ammonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not belong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly to the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement and time. [conclusion p. 52-53] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QSUX1JffS4trd4H |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":450,"authors_free":[{"id":603,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":604,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is particularly inter\u00ad\r\nesting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre\u00ad\r\nvious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always \r\nfaithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not \r\nthat of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to \r\nAristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar \r\ndistortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance \r\nand fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary \r\nof Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any \r\ncase, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where \r\nthe author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own \r\nideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with \r\nthe help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already \r\nnoticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute \r\nAristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of \r\nAmmonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not \r\nbelong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly \r\nto the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement \r\nand time. [conclusion p. 52-53]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QSUX1JffS4trd4H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":450,"section_of":12,"pages":"45-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"]}
Title | Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker |
Pages | 213-228 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Joyal, Mark |
Translator(s) |
As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius. This is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,¹ but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate—or undermine—readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*² If, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short—a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.³ But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth. Hence the label Ps-Simplicius—a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it. [introduction p. 213-214] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SafBRE6SrgivoG5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1469","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1469,"authors_free":[{"id":2543,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2544,"entry_id":1469,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":540,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joyal, Mark","free_first_name":"Mark","free_last_name":"Joyal","norm_person":{"id":540,"first_name":"Mark","last_name":"Joyal","full_name":"Joyal, Mark","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1162514582","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5","main_title":{"title":"Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"},"abstract":"As often, the title of this paper needs a word of explanation, since some readers, though not our dedicatee, might wonder who the author I call Ps-Simplicius might be. Those whose interests lie in Aristotle rather than his Neoplatonic commentators may not all be aware that there is a serious problem about the authorship of the De Anima commentary, which they know as the work of Simplicius.\r\n\r\nThis is not the place to discuss this problem, which I and others have discussed elsewhere,\u00b9 but the fact, as I think one must now take it to be, that our author is not the real Simplicius has an important implication for any study on the text of this work. That is, the substantial corpus of work by Simplicius himself cannot be used to corroborate\u2014or undermine\u2014readings in our work, and one cannot appeal to it for support for a conjecture. This is all the more so since one of the stronger arguments for denying authorship to the real Simplicius is that the language of the De Anima commentary is so different from his as to put it beyond the bounds of possibility that we are dealing with two different kinds of writing from one and the same hand.*\u00b2\r\n\r\nIf, as some think, the author was Priscian of Lydia, author of the Metaphrasis in Theophrastum, we could occasionally appeal to that work, though it is short\u2014a mere thirty-seven pages of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.\u00b3 But I think there are difficulties about that identification which are sufficient to require at least a degree of caution, and that all one can safely say is that this commentary comes from the same intellectual area as the works of Simplicius, Priscian, and Damascius, all Neoplatonists who worked in Athens at the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth.\r\n\r\nHence the label Ps-Simplicius\u2014a counsel of prudence, if not quite despair: not quite, because a solution is possible in principle, though I suspect that we may never arrive at it.\r\n[introduction p. 213-214]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SafBRE6SrgivoG5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":540,"full_name":"Joyal, Mark","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1469,"section_of":1470,"pages":"213-228","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1470,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John Whittaker","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book, which honours the career of a distinguished scholar, contains essays dealing with important problems in Plato, the Platonic tradition, and the texts and transmission of Plato and later Platonic writers. It ranges from the discussion of issues in individual Platonic dialogues to the examination of Platonism in the Middle Ages. The essays are written by leading scholars in the field and reflect the current state of knowledge on the various problems under discussion. The collection as a whole testifies to the importance of the Platonic writings for the history of ideas, and to the vitality that the study of these writings continues to possess.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JhijSNjBEJlYa2C","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1470,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge (2017)","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Notes on the Text of Pseudo-Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima , III. 1-5"]}
Title | Soul Vehicles in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Published in | Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism |
Pages | 173-188 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the ochêma—or ochêmata—the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius’ case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle. The purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish: How many such vehicles there were. What they were made of. What was their function, and, related to this: What was their life expectancy. Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context? In considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"896","_score":null,"_source":{"id":896,"authors_free":[{"id":1322,"entry_id":896,"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}},{"id":2442,"entry_id":896,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"},"abstract":"There has been a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the nature and function of the och\u00eama\u2014or och\u00eamata\u2014the body or bodies made of not quite bodily substance, which served as an intermediary between body and soul in various Neoplatonisms from Porphyry, or even arguably Plotinus, down to and including Proclus. Rather less attention, and in Simplicius\u2019 case virtually none, has been paid to the nature and role of such intermediary vehicles in the Neoplatonist commentators on Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe purpose of the following pages will be to examine the use of the concept in Simplicius. In particular, it will seek to establish:\r\n\r\n How many such vehicles there were.\r\n What they were made of.\r\n What was their function, and, related to this:\r\n What was their life expectancy.\r\n Were they simply such as one would expect to find in the work of a Neoplatonist at this time, or are they in some way modified by the commentary context?\r\n\r\nIn considering these matters, special attention will be paid to the vocabulary used to discuss them. It should not, however, come as a surprise to discover that it is not significantly, if at all, different from that of those Neoplatonists who did not concentrate their endeavors on the exposition of Aristotle. [introduction p. 173]","btype":2,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iFGbdffl8v5SpA9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":896,"section_of":214,"pages":"173-188","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Soul and intellect: Studies in Plotinus and later Neoplatonism","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1993c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1993","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1993","abstract":"This book presents a series of Dr. Blumenthal\u2019s studies on the history of Neoplatonism, from its founder Plotinus to the end of Classical Antiquity, relating especially to the Neoplatonists\u2019 doctrines about the soul. The work falls into two parts. The first deals with Plotinus and considers the soul both as part of the structure of the universe and in its capacity as the basis of the individual\u2019s vital and cognitive functions. The second part is concerned with the later history of Neoplatonism, including its end. Its main focus is the investigation of how Neoplatonic psychology was modified and developed by later philosophers, in particular the commentators on Aristotle, and used as the starting point for their Platonizing interpretations of his philosophy.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Hj2vOznXoMqSzco","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":214,"pubplace":"Aldershot (Hampshire)","publisher":"Variorum","series":"Variorum collected studies series","volume":"426","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Soul Vehicles in Simplicius"]}
Title | Speculating about Diogenes |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy |
Pages | 353-364 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Laks, André |
Editor(s) | Curd, Patricia , Graham, Daniel W. |
Translator(s) |
Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diogène d’Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels’s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes’ popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes’ Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes’ depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar? Has this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term “eclecticism.” What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of “material monism.” I personally tend to think that Diogenes’ contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes’ monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham’s paradoxical point); but Graham’s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes’ own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes’ thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/438sP1InUW9fsIE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1399","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1399,"authors_free":[{"id":2178,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":225,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","free_first_name":"Andr\u00e9","free_last_name":"Laks","norm_person":{"id":225,"first_name":"Andr\u00e9","last_name":"Laks","full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135869161","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2181,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":58,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Curd, Patricia","free_first_name":"Patricia","free_last_name":"Curd","norm_person":{"id":58,"first_name":"Patricia","last_name":"Curd","full_name":"Curd, Patricia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13843980X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2182,"entry_id":1399,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":374,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","free_first_name":"Daniel W.","free_last_name":"Graham","norm_person":{"id":374,"first_name":"Daniel W.","last_name":"Graham","full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121454800","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speculating about Diogenes","main_title":{"title":"Speculating about Diogenes"},"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago, I made an attempt (in my book Diog\u00e8ne d\u2019Apollonie, 1983) to take Diogenes somewhat more seriously than he had usually been taken, at least since Diels\u2019s devastating 1881 article in which he portrayed Diogenes as a second-rate eclectic thinker. Diogenes\u2019 popularity in the last third of the fifth century, which Diels greatly contributed to establishing through an analysis of Diogenian echoes in Aristophanes\u2019 Clouds and was confirmed by the discovery in 1962 of the Derveni Papyrus, went along with Diogenes\u2019 depreciated intellectual status: Are not serious thinkers ignored by the vulgar?\r\n\r\nHas this attempt been successful? The fact that some collections and translations of Presocratic philosophers leave him out may or may not be significant: some publishers obviously think the corpus is too bulky. But Diogenes is certainly still lacking general recognition. Histories of archaic philosophy tend to overlook him and often offer little more than an implicit justification for his exclusion, the core of which is encapsulated in the term \u201ceclecticism.\u201d What makes him visible is his absence, rather than any discussion about him. One complaint made by a reviewer of the Cambridge Companion to Early Greek Philosophy was that it nowhere happens even to mention the one achievement Diogenes is credited with, namely his alleged role in the history of teleology, for which he is occasionally praised. It is all the more noteworthy that Graham, in his recent book, has made of Diogenes a landmark in the history of Presocratic philosophy by making him, rather than the older Anaximenes, the real promoter of the doctrine of \u201cmaterial monism.\u201d\r\n\r\nI personally tend to think that Diogenes\u2019 contribution, on this point, is rather to have explicitly stated the implications of Anaximenes\u2019 monism, rather than substituting a material monism to an Anaximenean pluralism (Graham\u2019s paradoxical point); but Graham\u2019s book came out after this contribution was submitted and could not be taken into account. I shall consequently restate in a rather perfunctory manner, without adding much to what I have written before, what seem to be two basic points about Diogenes. The first one concerns what I take to be the center of Diogenes\u2019 own thought, namely the relation between his noetics (so I shall call his doctrine of Intelligence) and his teleology; the second is about the reception of Diogenes\u2019 thought and the origin of his reputation as an eclectic. [introduction p. 353-354]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/438sP1InUW9fsIE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":225,"full_name":"Laks, Andr\u00e9","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":58,"full_name":"Curd, Patricia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":374,"full_name":"Graham, Daniel W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1399,"section_of":1400,"pages":"353-364","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1400,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Curd2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Oxford Handbook of Presocratic Philosophy brings together leading international scholars to study the diverse figures, movements, and approaches that constitute Presocratic philosophy. In the sixth and fifth centuries bc a new kind of thinker appeared in Greek city-states, dedicated to finding the origins of the world and everything in it, using observation and reason rather than tradition and myth. We call these thinkers Presocratic philosophers, and recognize them as the first philosophers of the Western tradition, as well as the originators of scientific thinking. New textual discoveries and new approaches make a reconsideration of the Presocratics at the beginning of the twenty-first century especially timely. More than a survey of scholarship, this study presents new interpretations and evaluations of the Presocratics' accomplishments, from Thales to the sophists, from theology to science, and from pre-philosophical background to their influence on later thinkers. Many positions presented here challenge accepted wisdom and offer alternative accounts of Presocratic theories. This book includes chapters on the Milesians (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes), Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, the atomists, and the sophists. Special studies are devoted to the sources of Presocratic philosophy, oriental influences, Hippocratic medicine, cosmology, explanation, epistemology, theology, and the reception of Presocratic thought in Aristotle and other ancient authors. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXFwMNnXTnju9zT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1400,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Speculating about Diogenes"]}
Title | Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier |
Pages | 93-103 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Thiel, Rainer |
Editor(s) | Fuhrer, Therese , Erler, Michael |
Translator(s) |
The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of "purifications" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"470","_score":null,"_source":{"id":470,"authors_free":[{"id":633,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":333,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thiel, Rainer","free_first_name":"Rainer","free_last_name":"Thiel","norm_person":{"id":333,"first_name":"Rainer","last_name":"Thiel","full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12885054X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":634,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":339,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","free_first_name":"Therese","free_last_name":"Fuhrer","norm_person":{"id":339,"first_name":"Therese","last_name":"Fuhrer","full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/117693804","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":635,"entry_id":470,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion","main_title":{"title":"Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"},"abstract":"The text presents an analysis of the Stoic ethics and its placement within the Neoplatonic system, particularly in Simplicius' commentary on Epictetus' Enchiridion. It explores how the Neoplatonic tradition emerged as a unified philosophical school, leading to the disappearance of conflicting philosophical schools. Despite the Stoic teachings being present in Neoplatonic works, they are generally treated critically and dismissed as opposed to the Aristotelian position. The text then delves into the Neoplatonic system of virtues, starting with Plato's four cardinal virtues, which were further developed by Neoplatonists. It highlights Plotinus' view that the political virtues alone are not sufficient for the soul's ascent to divine perfection, as they are related to the material world. Instead, Plotinus introduces the concept of \"purifications\" as the virtues that enable the soul to detach from bodily passions and elevate itself towards the divine. The abstract concludes by emphasizing the relevance of Simplikios' application of this Neoplatonic virtue system to Epictetus' Enchiridion, positioning it as an essential tool for the soul's progress towards resemblance to the divine. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKLOhPA3UpPbgKk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":333,"full_name":"Thiel, Rainer","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":339,"full_name":"Fuhrer, Therese","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":470,"section_of":324,"pages":"93-103","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":324,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Sp\u00e4tantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 22.-25. September 1997 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fuhrer\/Erler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Review by T. Runia: As a generalization it is often remarked that the poor state of our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, based almost exclusively on reports and fragments, is due to the decline of interest in this philosophy during the period of late antiquity. After the schools had closed down by the beginning of the 3rd century C.E., Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean writings ceased to circulate widely, and in the end disappeared completely. Of course the end result of this process cannot be disputed. These writings have simply disappeared and, short of a miracle, they will not resurface.\r\n\r\nBut the process certainly took longer and was less radical in its earlier stages than is often thought. Late ancient philosophers and theologians in many cases still had a considerable knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy and used that knowledge to good effect in their own writings.\r\n\r\nThe theme of the reception of Hellenistic philosophy in late antiquity is the subject of the book under review, which contains fifteen studies originally presented at a conference in Trier in 1997. The studies are in German, with two exceptions, a paper in Italian and one in English. They have been prepared by a group of young scholars, mainly in their 30's and 40's, who in most cases have taken up positions in German and Swiss universities during the past decade or so.\r\n\r\nReviewing the various studies, one cannot but help noticing a marked similarity of method. The subjects treated are on the whole fairly limited in scope, and often concentrate on a particular author and a particular text. The detailed treatment is usually prefaced by an introductory section, which places the subject in a wider context, for example by tracing its development from the end of the Hellenistic period to the time of the author being discussed.These introductory sections can sometimes be very entertaining and informative (as in the case of the article of Christoph Riedweg, who points out remarkable correspondences between the period of late antiquity and our own time), but can also be too much simply a catalogue of authors and texts (as in the case of the survey of Epicureanism from Hadrian to Lactantius in the article by Jochem Althoff). The end result is that we have fifteen small but well-featured islands standing out in the broader sea of the book's subject.\r\n\r\nThe brief introduction competently but very succinctly outlines three connecting themes:\r\n\r\n The role of the Stoa and Epicureanism in Platonist philosophy.\r\n Scepticism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism in Christian literature.\r\n Doctrines of the Hellenistic philosophical schools as general cultural knowledge (Bildungsgut).\r\n\r\nBut no real attempt is made to cover the subject in more general terms. This is increasingly the method of such selective conference volumes. In spite of the general title, it is primarily a book for specialists.\r\n\r\nThe fifteen papers can be more or less divided into the three thematic categories noted above. Four concentrate on Hellenistic themes in later Platonism: Dominic O'Meara on Epicurus Neoplatonicus, Rainer Thiel and Michael Erler on the preparatory role of Hellenistic (and especially Stoic) ethics, Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel on Proclus' doctrine of the origin of evil and its Hellenistic antecedents. Christoph Riedweg, by investigating Julian's use of Stoic and Platonic argumentation in his anti-Christian polemic, bridges the gap with the eight contributions which concentrate on Patristic authors.\r\n\r\nThe intellectual dominance of Augustine is illustrated by the fact that no less than five contributions concentrate on his writings: Maria Bettetini on the background to De musica (very little Hellenistic philosophy here), Karin Schlapbach on Ciceronian and Neoplatonist elements in the proarmia of Contra Academicos I & II, Sabine Harwardt on Stoic argumentation in De beata vita, Christoph Horn on Augustine's moral philosophy in relation to Greek virtue ethics, Therese Fuhrer on the Hellenistic epistemological background of Augustine's concept of faith.\r\n\r\nThe other three specifically Patristic contributions are on Amobius (philosophical themes in his apologetic argumentation, by Sabine Follinger), Lactantius (his use of Epicurus, by Jochem Althoff), and Prudentius (virtue against vice in the Psychomachia, by Carolin Oser-Grote).\r\n\r\nThe volume ends with two more general treatments. Karla Pollman attempts to trace two differing conceptions of fictionality\u2014the Platonic mimesis-model focused on the author and the Stoic signification-model focused more on the reader\u2014from Hellenistic philosophy to their adaptation in late ancient texts. Ulrich Eigler, in an ambitious and stimulating contribution, investigates the cultural context of the kind of amateur use of philosophy that we find, for example, in Jerome's writings. Of these fifteen articles, three stand out on account of the lucidity of their treatment and the importance of their subject. Christoph Horn's method is perhaps somewhat unusual, in that he focuses his treatment of Augustine's virtue ethics almost entirely on a point-by-point rebuttal of the position of the Swedish scholar of a previous generation, Gosta Hok, whom he accuses of interpreting Augustine in such a way as to make him a fideistic opponent of ancient rationalism. In actual fact, Augustine unreservedly takes over the basic theses of ancient ethical rationalism, but in his later years reserves it for followers of the \"true religion,\" without coming to a real discussion with its original Neoplatonist proponents.\r\n\r\nMany of Horn's points are well taken, but one wonders whether in this interpretation the gulf between Augustine's professed method of selective spoliatio and his actual practice of largely uncritical appropriation (as proposed by Horn) does not become too great. What Augustine objects to in ancient rationalism is its intellectual arrogance, the refusal to submit to the yoke of faith. This position seems to me to have revisionary aspirations. The struggle between \"catholic\" and \"protestant\" readings of Augustine is likely to continue.\r\n\r\nIn her paper on the epistemological background to Augustine's conception of faith, Therese Fuhrer argues that it is to be found in the Stoic theory in which assent (adsensio, \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) precedes both knowledge (scientia, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7, based on comprehensio, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) and belief (opinio, \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1). A priori, this seems not so likely, since the role assigned to volition in the two conceptions is quite different. Nevertheless, Fuhrer manages to show that both in terms of structure and terminology this background does have illuminating features.\r\n\r\nA difficulty remains that no texts indicating an explicit relation between the act of faith and epistemological assent can be found until two passages in very late writings. This article illustrates how difficult it is to pin Augustine down in relation to specific philosophical theories. It is his powerful transforming drive that makes his views so distinctive and so hard to categorize in \"doxographical\" terms.\r\n\r\nThe article of Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel is recommended reading for anyone interested in how ancient philosophers working within the tradition of classical ontology wrestled with the problem of evil. Not only does it give an excellent overview of the dilemmas involved and the solutions attempted, but it also draws on the new translation of Proclus' De malorum substantia, which the authors are preparing.\r\n\r\nThey show how Proclus tries to find a way out of the classical dilemma in which one either has to detract from providence or not take evil seriously enough as a real aspect of the world. Proclus' solution is intriguing but very risky. Any attribution of evil to the first cause is unacceptable, but in the light of Neoplatonist ontological monism this means that one has to understand evil as an (ultimately) uncaused event.\r\n\r\nNot only is this very awkward in light of the Platonic principle nihil fit sine causa, which Proclus fully endorses, but it also seems to reduce evil to a kind of accidental epiphenomenon. Opsomer and Steel argue that Proclus may have found a third way between the Stoa and the Peripatos (which reserves providence for the divine realm only), but at a considerable cost. They tentatively conclude that the Stoa continues to hold the last word in this debate, and that theodicy may well be the worst legacy that this school has left to subsequent philosophy. This is perhaps a somewhat disappointing result, but no better illustration could be given of the importance of studying Hellenistic philosophy as a background for late ancient and patristic philosophy.\r\n\r\nIn furthering this study, the book under review makes a valuable contribution. The volume also shows, as the product of predominantly young scholars, that the future of scholarship in the area of later ancient and Patristic philosophy is in good hands.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Wi5qXtXGHesjYwT","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":324,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Stoische Ethik und neuplatonische Tugendlehre. Zur Verortung der stoischen Ethik im neuplatonischen System in Simplikios' Kommentar zu Epiktets Enchiridion"]}
Title | Strato’s theory of the void |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 594-609 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Furley, David J. |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), Simplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a distinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and those who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first class. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think it is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the material substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that which completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further subdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen sions, “as Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did”, and those who gave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the one hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held that place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists without any body in it, and on the other hand, “the famous Plato- nists and Strato of Lampsacus”, who said that place is an extended interval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its particular occupant... [p. 594] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/67tMakGWPrXgZyV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"785","_score":null,"_source":{"id":785,"authors_free":[{"id":1157,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":103,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Furley, David J. ","free_first_name":"David J. ","free_last_name":"Furley","norm_person":{"id":103,"first_name":"David J. ","last_name":"Furley","full_name":"Furley, David J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138978131","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2354,"entry_id":785,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void","main_title":{"title":"Strato\u2019s theory of the void"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Corollary on Place (In Phys. 601, 14-24), \r\nSimplicius classifies theories about place, as follows. First, there is a \r\ndistinction between those who make place a corporeal thing and \r\nthose who suppose it is incorporeal. Only Proclus falls into the first \r\nclass. O f the latter, some think it is without extension, the rest think \r\nit is extended. The first group consists of Plato, who said place is the \r\nmaterial substrate of bodies, and Damascius, who said it is that \r\nwhich completes the nature of bodies. The second group is further \r\nsubdivided, into those who held place to be extended in two dimen\u00ad\r\nsions, \u201cas Aristotle and the whole Peripatos did\u201d, and those who \r\ngave it three dimensions. The latter can be subdivided again: on the \r\none hand, there is the school of Democritus and Epicurus, who held \r\nthat place is everywhere undifferentiated, and sometimes persists \r\nwithout any body in it, and on the other hand, \u201cthe famous Plato- \r\nnists and Strato of Lampsacus\u201d, who said that place is an extended \r\ninterval (diastema) that always contains body and is adapted to its \r\nparticular occupant... [p. 594]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/67tMakGWPrXgZyV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":103,"full_name":"Furley, David J. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":785,"section_of":190,"pages":"594-609","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Strato\u2019s theory of the void"]}
Title | Sur quelques aspects de la polémique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l’invective à la réaffirmation de la transcendance du ciel |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 183-221 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage exégétique conçu comme un hymne au Démiurge, présente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance céleste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un mélange des cimes (akrotêtes) des quatre éléments, c'est-à-dire un mélange des quatre éléments dans leur état le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce mélange prédomine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu. Cette doctrine n'est pas, quant à ses matériaux conceptuels, une création neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de manière plus détaillée encore, on la rencontre dans le troisième livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Timée. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interprétation générale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une démonstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une réaction face aux théories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'était appuyé sur le Timée pour réfuter la doctrine aristotélicienne de la quintessence et de l'éternité du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute différence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire. Réfutant les théories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius réaffirme la divinité, la transcendance et l’éternité du ciel, dans une exégèse qui vise à harmoniser (et non à opposer) le Timée et le De caelo. Cette exégèse est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'âme (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le Démiurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l’un des contenus les plus précieux de la révélation. Celle-ci ne peut être procurée aux lecteurs momentanément abusés par Philopon qu’au terme d’une purification préparatoire, qui est la réfutation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem. Ainsi, la polémique de Simplicius est orientée vers une visée indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpréter correctement le De caelo d’Aristote, ce n’est pas seulement acquérir des connaissances intellectuelles, c’est aussi, et surtout, s’élever par la pensée (mais de manière « vécue ») jusqu’au monde et au Démiurge, c’est leur adresser une prière. Au sacrilège blasphématoire du chrétien Philopon répond la liturgie néoplatonicienne, juste célébration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"688","_score":null,"_source":{"id":688,"authors_free":[{"id":1022,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1023,"entry_id":688,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel","main_title":{"title":"Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"},"abstract":"Le Commentaire de Simplicius au De caelo d'Aristote, vaste ouvrage ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique con\u00e7u comme un hymne au D\u00e9miurge, pr\u00e9sente une doctrine fondamentale sur la structure physique de la substance c\u00e9leste : celle-ci, nous dit Simplicius, est un m\u00e9lange des cimes (akrot\u00eates) des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments, c'est-\u00e0-dire un m\u00e9lange des quatre \u00e9l\u00e9ments dans leur \u00e9tat le plus principiel et le plus pur, et dans ce m\u00e9lange pr\u00e9domine la cime, purement lumineuse, du feu.\r\n\r\nCette doctrine n'est pas, quant \u00e0 ses mat\u00e9riaux conceptuels, une cr\u00e9ation neuve ou originale de Simplicius, car de mani\u00e8re plus d\u00e9taill\u00e9e encore, on la rencontre dans le troisi\u00e8me livre du Commentaire de Proclus au Tim\u00e9e. Mais je voudrais montrer, dans le cadre d'une interpr\u00e9tation g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Commentaire au De caelo, que Simplicius en donne une d\u00e9monstration et en fait un usage qui lui sont propres, et qui se comprennent en grande partie comme une r\u00e9action face aux th\u00e9ories de Jean Philopon. Ce dernier s'\u00e9tait appuy\u00e9 sur le Tim\u00e9e pour r\u00e9futer la doctrine aristot\u00e9licienne de la quintessence et de l'\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du monde, et il niait, bien avant Copernic, toute diff\u00e9rence substantielle entre les cieux et le monde sublunaire.\r\n\r\nR\u00e9futant les th\u00e9ories du Contra Aristotelem de Philopon, Simplicius r\u00e9affirme la divinit\u00e9, la transcendance et l\u2019\u00e9ternit\u00e9 du ciel, dans une ex\u00e9g\u00e8se qui vise \u00e0 harmoniser (et non \u00e0 opposer) le Tim\u00e9e et le De caelo. Cette ex\u00e9g\u00e8se est un acte religieux, un exercice spirituel qui convertit l'\u00e2me (celle de Simplicius et celle de son lecteur) vers le D\u00e9miurge. Cette conversion est une initiation aux grandeurs du monde et du ciel, et la description de la nature physique du ciel est l\u2019un des contenus les plus pr\u00e9cieux de la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation. Celle-ci ne peut \u00eatre procur\u00e9e aux lecteurs momentan\u00e9ment abus\u00e9s par Philopon qu\u2019au terme d\u2019une purification pr\u00e9paratoire, qui est la r\u00e9futation des analyses du Contra Aristotelem.\r\n\r\nAinsi, la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius est orient\u00e9e vers une vis\u00e9e indissolublement philosophique et religieuse : lire et interpr\u00e9ter correctement le De caelo d\u2019Aristote, ce n\u2019est pas seulement acqu\u00e9rir des connaissances intellectuelles, c\u2019est aussi, et surtout, s\u2019\u00e9lever par la pens\u00e9e (mais de mani\u00e8re \u00ab v\u00e9cue \u00bb) jusqu\u2019au monde et au D\u00e9miurge, c\u2019est leur adresser une pri\u00e8re. Au sacril\u00e8ge blasph\u00e9matoire du chr\u00e9tien Philopon r\u00e9pond la liturgie n\u00e9oplatonicienne, juste c\u00e9l\u00e9bration du Dieu. [introduction p. 183-184]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBslsmZjGCgfHjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":688,"section_of":171,"pages":"183-221","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Sur quelques aspects de la pol\u00e9mique de Simplicius contre Jean Philopon: de l\u2019invective \u00e0 la r\u00e9affirmation de la transcendance du ciel"]}
Title | Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2013 |
Published in | Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft für antike Philosophie 2010 |
Pages | 469-494 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Erler, Michael , Heßler, Jan Erik , Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator) |
Translator(s) |
We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public. And if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting. The title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading “challenging literary texts.” It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required. To play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: “In this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man’s writings admit of more than one interpretation.” This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author. To avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias’ argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed. All participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates’ belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine. For this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things. When commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (ἐπιπόλαιοι) and profound (βαθύτεροι) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, “find pleasure in plausible arguments,” based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. “The more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (πρόχειρον) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.” In this sense, I would also like to be a ‘profound’ reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor. For, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: “What do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?” [conclusion p. 490-492] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"482","_score":null,"_source":{"id":482,"authors_free":[{"id":653,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":654,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":164,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Erler, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Erler","norm_person":{"id":164,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Erler","full_name":"Erler, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122153847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2424,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":478,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","free_first_name":"Jan Erik","free_last_name":"He\u00dfler","norm_person":{"id":478,"first_name":"Jan Erik","last_name":"He\u00dfler","full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1059760533","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2425,"entry_id":482,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":479,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt (Collaborator)","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Blumenfelder","norm_person":{"id":479,"first_name":"Benedikt","last_name":"Blumenfelder","full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"},"abstract":"We are here together to discuss various forms of philosophy in antiquity. There is a surprising variety of literary genres of philosophy so different from the narrow academic format of proceedings, handbooks, and referred journal articles. Already among the works of Aristotle, as the commentators noticed, there is a great variety, and Aristotle always adapted his style to the genre: dialogues, letters, protreptics, documentation works, research discussions, treatises on ethics and politics aiming at a broader public.\r\n\r\nAnd if we take the whole literary production of ancient philosophy, the variety is even more impressive. Besides the treatises and commentaries, the summaries and paraphrases, refutations and replies, the handbooks, manuals, and doxographies, there are dialogues and diatribes and orations, letters and catechisms with sentences to be set in practice, epigraphical posters in public city galleries, philosophical poems and political pamphlets, revelations of Hermes Trismegistos, Chaldean oracles, and we must include the manifold Jewish and Christian interpretations of biblical texts, sermons, and theological polemics. They all require other ways of reading and interpreting.\r\n\r\nThe title of this introductory lecture does not mean that I would recommend us to seek for deeper meaning hidden under the many literary forms. It was undoubtedly a very influential hermeneutical model, in particular when combined with the esoteric\/exoteric distinction. But in my view, it remains primarily a model for interpreting mythical and sacred texts and, since the secularization of sacred hermeneutics, for reading \u201cchallenging literary texts.\u201d It is not a method for the interpretation of philosophical texts, where analysis, insight into the structure of arguments, questioning, and criticism are required.\r\n\r\nTo play with a well-known quote from Thoreau: \u201cIn this part of the world (i.e., in philosophy), it is considered a ground for complaint if a man\u2019s writings admit of more than one interpretation.\u201d This refusal of a search for deeper meaning in philosophy, however, does not mean that we should remain just superficial readers, surfing on the text. Let us use all the possibilities we have, including attention to the literary context, to better understand the argument of the author.\r\n\r\nTo avoid the impression that I am finally agreeing with Aristotle against Plato, let me conclude with a remarkable statement of Plato in the Phaedo. It comes from the crucial section of the debate where Socrates starts his critique of Simmias\u2019 argument that the soul is the harmony of the body and will disappear once the substrate is destroyed.\r\n\r\nAll participants are deeply impressed by the harmony argument, and there is an uneasy silence, as they thought it was a fatal blow to Socrates\u2019 belief in immortality, but Socrates is not impressed. He confronts Simmias with a difficult choice: If you stick to the harmony doctrine, you will have to give up the other doctrine you just accepted, because it is incompatible with the harmony thesis, namely that all knowledge is recollection. What will you keep then, Simmias, this new theory or the former you already accepted? Simmias answers without hesitation that he would stand by the anamnesis doctrine.\r\n\r\nFor this other (sc. the doctrine that the soul is like a harmony) came to me without demonstration; it merely seemed probable and attractive, which is the reason why many people hold it. I am conscious that arguments which base their demonstrations on mere probability are deceptive, and if we are not on our guard against them, they deceive us greatly, in geometry and in all other things.\r\n\r\nWhen commenting on this passage, Damascius, the last head of the Platonic Academy in Athens, distinguishes between what he calls superficial (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9) and profound (\u03b2\u03b1\u03b8\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9) thinkers, but not in any esoteric sense. Superficial thinkers, he says, \u201cfind pleasure in plausible arguments,\u201d based on analogies and comparisons, metaphors. That is why the analogy of the soul with the harmony of the lyre is so attractive. \u201cThe more profound thinkers, who scorn the world of senses and its ready-at-hand (\u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) beliefs, rise above plausibilities and love arguments that are connected by necessity.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn this sense, I would also like to be a \u2018profound\u2019 reader ... alas, there arises again a problem. The doctrine that, according to Socrates, is supposedly demonstrated by sound, almost geometrical arguments, and not by analogy, as the rejected harmony thesis, is itself based on analogy and metaphor.\r\n\r\nFor, Aristotle, sitting in this hall, would stand up and say: \u201cWhat do you mean, Socrates, by that anamnesis? Is it not a metaphor and poetical phrase?\u201d [conclusion p. 490-492]","btype":2,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3r4OKQesOkyPwb0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":164,"full_name":"Erler, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":478,"full_name":"He\u00dfler, Jan Erik","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":479,"full_name":"Blumenfelder, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":482,"section_of":322,"pages":"469-494","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":322,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Argument und literarische Form in antiker Philosophie. Akten des 3. Kongresses der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie 2010","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Erler2013","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2013","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2013","abstract":"In der modernen Universit\u00e4t werden Literatur, Philologie und Philosophie als unterschiedliche Bereiche betrachtet. Damit wird eine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert zunehmende Entfremdung zwischen der Erforschung antiker Philosophie und Philologie manifest, die den urspr\u00fcnglichen Gegebenheiten in der Antike keineswegs gerecht wird. Denn die Philosophie entwickelt sich in Griechenland und Rom in enger Verbindung mit und oft in einem Spannungsverh\u00e4ltnis zu unterschiedlichen literarischen Genres. Dies hat zur Folge, dass die Autoren und Interpreten infolge der Wahl bestimmter Gattungen als Medium philosophischer Botschaften neben der eigentlichen Argumentation auch Darstellungsformen der jeweiligen Gattungen zu w\u00fcrdigen haben. Dieses oft spannungsvolle Verh\u00e4ltnis von philosophischem Argument und literarischer Form auszuleuchten hatte sich der 3. Kongress der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr antike Philosophie vorgenommen. In Vortr\u00e4gen und Diskussionsrunden von Philosophen und Philologen wurde diese Frage unter verschiedenen Aspekten mit Blick auf antike Philosophen verschiedener Epochen lebendig diskutiert. Dieser Band, der den Gro\u00dfteil dieser Beitr\u00e4ge versammelt, mag einen Eindruck von der Diskussion vermitteln und Philologen, Philosophen und an der Antike Interessierte zu weiteren \u00dcberlegungen anregen. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0QiKNhBCl16gJMn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":322,"pubplace":"Berlin","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Surface Reading and Deeper Meaning. On Aristotle reading Plato and Platonists reading Aristotle"]}
Title | Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben |
Pages | 215-232 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tarán, Leonardo |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander’s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander’s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"797","_score":null,"_source":{"id":797,"authors_free":[{"id":1176,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1177,"entry_id":797,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N","main_title":{"title":"Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"},"abstract":"The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alexander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander\u2019s lost commentary on Metaphysics E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N, Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander\u2019s commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself. [conclusion p. 231]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TQhCHWKXBejvsjI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":797,"section_of":189,"pages":"215-232","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":189,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 2: Kommentierung, \u00dcberlieferung, Nachleben","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Lulofs\/Kollesch\/Nutton1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Kommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles sind das Thema dieses Bandes. Mit der Aristotelesrenaissance des 1. Jh. v.Chr. einsetzend, vermitteln die Beitr\u00e4ge, unter acht Hauptkapiteln zusammengefa\u00dft, ein eindrucksvolles Bild von der Rezeption zweier Jahrtausende. D a \u00df diese Rezeption kontinuierlich in ihren wichtigen Phasen illustriert werden kann, ist - wie schon im ersten Band - der freundlichen Kooperation der beteiligten Autoren zu verdanken. Als besonderer Gl\u00fccksfall mag gelten, da\u00df einige Beitr\u00e4ge sich in idealer Weise erg\u00e4nzen. So wird der Leser in zwei auf einanderfolgenden Artikeln die Interpretationsgeschichte der zentralen Kapitel Metaphysik \u039b 7 und 9 von Plotin und Themistios \u00fcber Maimonides und Gersonides bis Hegel verfolgen k\u00f6nnen. Dieses Bem\u00fchen um Aristoteles von der Antike bis in die Neuzeit ist etwa f\u00fcr De anima bei Alexander von Aphrodisias und Leibniz, f\u00fcr die \r\nKategorien bei Plotin und Peirce dokumentiert, wobei die Erstver\u00f6ffentlichung der Ubersetzung von Cat. 1 - 4 durch den bedeutenden amerikanischen Philosophen mit besonderer Freude angezeigt werden darf. \r\nVon den Autoren dieses Bandes weilen Paul Henry und Charles B. Schmitt nicht mehr unter uns. In ein Buch \u00fcber Plotins Entretiens sollte der hier ver\u00f6ffentlichte Beitrag von Paul Henry sp\u00e4ter einmal integriert werden; daraus erkl\u00e4ren sich gelegentliche Hinweise auf geplante Teile dieses nun nicht mehr vollendeten Werkes. Die Studie von Charles B.Schmitt \u00fcber die Aristoteles-Florilegien der Renaissance bietet die erste Gesamtdarstellung zu diesem Thema und enth\u00e4lt im Anhang ein Verzeichnis mit wichtigen Erg\u00e4nzungen zu seiner grundlegenden \u201eBibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501-1600\". [Vorwort p. V-VI]\r\n","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Q1P6OhIp8zaE99c","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":189,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander\u2019s Commentary on Metaph. E-N"]}
Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 239-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"]}
Title | The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1973 |
Published in | Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric |
Pages | 101-126 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kustas, George L. |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle’s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry’s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus’ students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius’ lectures before emigrating to Athens. We are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle’s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1514","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1514,"authors_free":[{"id":2630,"entry_id":1514,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":562,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kustas, George L. ","free_first_name":"George L.","free_last_name":"Kustas","norm_person":{"id":562,"first_name":"George L. ","last_name":"Kustas","full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge","main_title":{"title":"The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"},"abstract":"Among the works edited in the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca are a number of analyses of the Categories, Aristotle\u2019s basic treatise on formal logic, as well as commentaries on Porphyry\u2019s introduction to philosophy, the Isagoge, which is concerned with basic philosophical principles. Those which concern us belong to the fifth\/sixth century and are the product of the Alexandrian school of Neoplatonism. The authors are Ammonius, son of Hermeias; his students, John Philoponus and Olympiodorus; and Olympiodorus\u2019 students, Elias and David. To this list we may add Simplicius, who attended Ammonius\u2019 lectures before emigrating to Athens.\r\n\r\nWe are dealing with a common tradition of exegesis. The standard arrangement is several pages of prolegomena, in which the author lays out his purpose and defines his terms, followed by extensive scholia on individual passages. The commentators consistently make the claim that they are clearing up obscurities in the text. Hence the term dodelex appears often in their pages. Our interest, however, lies not here but in their analysis of what they regard as Aristotle\u2019s deliberate use of obscurity as a quality of style designed with a specific end in view. We have therefore to examine in some detail what they say. [introduction p. 101]","btype":2,"date":"1973","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/czKsHr75gQ60Xo4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":562,"full_name":"Kustas, George L. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1514,"section_of":1515,"pages":"101-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1515,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kustas_1973","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1973","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rxJfkOyETAdcjhw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1515,"pubplace":"Thessalonike ","publisher":"Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton","series":"Analekta Vlatado\u0304n","volume":"17","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1514,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"101-126"}},"sort":["The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge"]}
Title | The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2000 |
Published in | Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society |
Pages | 183-203 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sluiter, Ineke |
Editor(s) | Depew, Mary , Obbink, Dirk |
Translator(s) |
In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of “genre”), “secondary literature” was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (εἶδος) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment. The commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a “grammarian,” an interpreter of someone else’s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge. Ancient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position—even though they do not call their own work a separate “genre” (fifth section, earlier). There is a risk of reducing the term “genre” to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities. However, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202–203] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6IXo92il3CT8q6x |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"394","_score":null,"_source":{"id":394,"authors_free":[{"id":518,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":317,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","free_first_name":"Ineke","free_last_name":"Sluiter","norm_person":{"id":317,"first_name":"Ineke","last_name":"Sluiter","full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132967278","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":519,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":59,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Depew, Mary","free_first_name":"Mary","free_last_name":"Depew","norm_person":{"id":59,"first_name":" Mary","last_name":"Depew","full_name":"Depew, Mary","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174040806","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":520,"entry_id":394,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":318,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Obbink, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Obbink","norm_person":{"id":318,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Obbink","full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132550458","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"},"abstract":"In ancient eidography (explicit descriptions of \u201cgenre\u201d), \u201csecondary literature\u201d was rarely regarded as a full-blown genre (\u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2) (see the fourth major section, earlier). However, it is perfectly possible for the modern researcher to identify the parameters that define the particular niche of the ancient commentator (second section, earlier). Every commentary must assume both the basic value of the source-texts and an element of inadequacy in them, which the commentator must redress. The commentator is duty-bound to give an optimal representation of his source-text, but at the same time, he cannot give up his critical judgment.\r\n\r\nThe commentator has a dual professional affiliation, as a doctor, philosopher, or astronomer, etc., and as a \u201cgrammarian,\u201d an interpreter of someone else\u2019s work. Since the latter qualification is less impressive socially, the commentator will be at pains to downplay that part of his work. Finally, the activities of commentators presuppose the unchangeable nature of the source-text, but their own work is located in the environment of the classroom, with emphasis on the oral, almost improvised transmission of ever-accumulating knowledge.\r\n\r\nAncient commentators themselves are familiar with generic distinctions and apply the notion of genre, borrowed from philology, to their work on the source-texts (third section, earlier). They are also aware of the fact that they themselves are engaged in a type of work with distinctive objectives and tasks. They are eager to stress that fact, and they reflect on their position\u2014even though they do not call their own work a separate \u201cgenre\u201d (fifth section, earlier).\r\n\r\nThere is a risk of reducing the term \u201cgenre\u201d to virtual meaninglessness if every subdivision made in ancient texts is described as the recognition of a new genre. Ancient commentators are fond of drawing all kinds of distinctions, both in ordering the corpora they are working on and in identifying the special nature of their own achievement compared with that of their predecessors. The prefatory passages dealt with in the fifth section earlier undoubtedly exemplify the rhetoric of self-legitimation, and they are indicative of the reflection of the commentators on the nature of their activities.\r\n\r\nHowever, it is possible to engage in that rhetoric and in self-reflection without conceptualizing it in terms of genre. [conclusion 202\u2013203]","btype":2,"date":"2000","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6IXo92il3CT8q6x","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":317,"full_name":"Sluiter, Ineke","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":59,"full_name":"Depew, Mary","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":318,"full_name":"Obbink, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":394,"section_of":319,"pages":"183-203","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":319,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Depew\/Obbink2000","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2000","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2000","abstract":"The literary genres given shape by the writers of classical antiquity are central to our own thinking about the various forms literature takes. Examining those genres, the essays collected here focus on the concept and role of the author and the emergence of authorship out of performance in Greece and Rome.\r\n\r\nIn a fruitful variety of ways the contributors to this volume address the questions: what generic rules were recognized and observed by the Greeks and Romans over the centuries; what competing schemes were there for classifying genres and accounting for literary change; and what role did authors play in maintaining and developing generic contexts? Their essays look at tragedy, epigram, hymns, rhapsodic poetry, history, comedy, bucolic poetry, prophecy, Augustan poetry, commentaries, didactic poetry, and works that \"mix genres.\"\r\n\r\nThe contributors bring to this analysis a wide range of expertise; they are, in addition to the editors, Glenn W. Most, Joseph Day, Ian Rutherford, Deborah Boedeker, Eric Csapo, Marco Fantuzzi, Stephanie West, Alessandro Barchiesi, Ineke Sluiter, Don Fowler, and Stephen Hinds. The essays are drawn from a colloquium at Harvard's Center for Hellenic Studies. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yqvzvd62JmM5MpJ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":319,"pubplace":"Cambridge (Mass.)","publisher":"Harvard University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity"]}
Title | The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 61-88 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gottschalk, Hans B. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the fi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist opponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something of Andronicus’ philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work on Aristotle’s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but now largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that Andronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on Chapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated enormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic interpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description ‘scholasticism’, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a description we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery of new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a contribution on some of Boethus’ achievement and further detail on the commentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. Th e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words ‘critical edition’ at the opening of Gottschalk’s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was challenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by comparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what the original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what Andronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript there, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly reduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re- Interpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of Aristotle’s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this argument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle’s voluminous school writings, by joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for reading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":535,"authors_free":[{"id":756,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":135,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","free_first_name":"Hans B.","free_last_name":"Gottschalk","norm_person":{"id":135,"first_name":"Hans B.","last_name":"Gottschalk","full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1161498559","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":757,"entry_id":535,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators","main_title":{"title":"The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"},"abstract":" In Chapter 3, Hans Gottschalk surveys the commentators on Aristotle from the \r\nfi rst century bc to late in the second century ad , and some of their Platonist \r\nopponents. He gives the most space to the fi rst of them, Andronicus, persuasively rguing that he worked in Athens without going to Rome, and telling something \r\nof Andronicus\u2019 philosophical comments on Aristotle and of his editorial work \r\non Aristotle\u2019s school writings (as opposed to his works then better known, but \r\nnow largely lost, for publication outside the school). He rightly says that \r\nAndronicus presented Aristotle as a system. As I indicated in commenting on \r\nChapter 1 above, his younger contemporary in Athens, Boethus, stimulated \r\nenormous reaction from later commentators by his detailed and idiosyncratic \r\ninterpretation of Aristotle, fragments of which they recorded. So the description \r\n\u2018scholasticism\u2019, insofar as it suggests to us something rather dry, is not a \r\ndescription we should now be likely to use, especially aft er the recent discovery \r\nof new fragments of Boethus. But Aristotle Re-Interpreted will include a \r\ncontribution on some of Boethus\u2019 achievement and further detail on the \r\ncommentators aft er him is supplied in other recent works listed above in note 6. \r\nTh e only big matter of controversy concerns the two words \u2018critical edition\u2019 at the \r\nopening of Gottschalk\u2019s chapter, which could be taken for granted in 1990. It was \r\nchallenged by Jonathan Barnes in 1997. 9 A critical edition is produced by \r\ncomparing diff erent copies of the original in order to discover more closely what \r\nthe original may have said. Barnes argued powerfully that this is not what \r\nAndronicus did. Indeed, if he did not go to Rome to examine the manuscript \r\nthere, it is even less likely that he did. One reaction was to think that this greatly \r\nreduced the importance of Andronicus. But a contribution in Aristotle Re-\r\nInterpreted will take up the other editorial activity including the presentation of \r\nAristotle\u2019s school writings as a system. It was far more valuable, according to this \r\nargument, to create a coherent canon of Aristotle\u2019s voluminous school writings, \r\nby joining or separating pieces and arranging them in a coherent order for \r\nreading, than to seek the original wording in a critical edition. [Sorabji: Introduction to the Second Edition, p. xii]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nJ4WSAlewntt7lZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":135,"full_name":"Gottschalk, Hans B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":535,"section_of":200,"pages":"61-88","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators"]}
Title | The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2021 |
Published in | Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor: Pieter Sjoerd Hasper |
Pages | CXIII-CLXXXVII |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd |
Editor(s) | Arnzen, Rüdiger |
Translator(s) |
The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle’s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group γ) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by EΨKbe and, to some extent, Λ—in K and be extensively, and in EΨ (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and Ψ are the most important ones. These claims about the extent of contamination from group γ in each part of the group constituted by EΨKbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius’ commentary and the β group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the γ group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius’ manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted. However, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the β group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the γ group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the EΨKbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the γ group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the EΨKbe group and the γ group can be identified as contaminations. The main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the EΨKbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1409","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1409,"authors_free":[{"id":2203,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":390,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","free_first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","free_last_name":"Hasper","norm_person":{"id":390,"first_name":"Pieter Sjoerd","last_name":"Hasper","full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2204,"entry_id":1409,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":35,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","free_first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","free_last_name":"Arnzen","norm_person":{"id":35,"first_name":"R\u00fcdiger","last_name":"Arnzen","full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115210423","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The manuscript tradition for the eighth book of Aristotle\u2019s Physics turns out to be quite complicated, in particular because of the influence of what later became the vulgate (group \u03b3) on other parts of the tradition. This influence can be detected in every part of one of the two main groups, namely in the one constituted by E\u03a8Kbe and, to some extent, \u039b\u2014in K and be extensively, and in E\u03a8 (both together and each individually) to a lesser degree. This makes it difficult to assess the authority of each of the individual manuscripts of this group, though clearly, E and \u03a8 are the most important ones.\r\n\r\nThese claims about the extent of contamination from group \u03b3 in each part of the group constituted by E\u03a8Kbe cannot be made without the evidence of two further sources: Simplicius\u2019 commentary and the \u03b2 group. It cannot be established whether the main manuscript used by Simplicius is completely independent of the extant manuscript tradition, but that may also be because the evidence is almost exclusively drawn from just one book of the Physics. It seems as if Simplicius shares a small number of errors or rejectable readings with the \u03b3 group, but this cannot be taken to imply that Simplicius is to be located in the stemma as most closely related to that group. This also remains a possibility. As there is no real evidence in Physics VIII that Simplicius\u2019 manuscript shares errors with parts of the direct tradition, we may, for the time being, assume that it is independent of the direct tradition, and thus, that in most cases, the consensus between Simplicius and a substantial part of the direct tradition provides the reading to be adopted.\r\n\r\nHowever, since the information provided by a commentary is by its nature rather patchy and does not lend itself to passing on insignificant errors, even more important is the position of the \u03b2 group within the stemma. This group clearly shares a substantial list of errors with the \u03b3 group and thus, together with that group, constitutes the other half of the stemma. On the other hand, it often agrees with (parts of) the E\u03a8Kbe group in that it does not feature many of the changes to the text that are found in the \u03b3 group. Thus, stemmatically inappropriate constellations of consensus between parts of the E\u03a8Kbe group and the \u03b3 group can be identified as contaminations.\r\n\r\nThe main exemplar of the Arabic translation is of similar importance for drawing these conclusions, since knowledge of its readings allows us to see the structure of the E\u03a8Kbe group far more clearly and to filter out all the many singular mistakes in E. It often joins E in providing the clearly superior reading and occasionally offers the correct reading alone. [conclusion p. CLXXXVI]","btype":2,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vSxI4j6pyBYMACx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":390,"full_name":"Hasper, Pieter Sjoerd","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":35,"full_name":"Arnzen, R\u00fcdiger","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1409,"section_of":1405,"pages":"CXIII-CLXXXVII","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1405,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle's 'Physics' VIII, Translated into Arabic by Ishaq ibn Hunayn (9th c.), Introduction, Edition, and Glossaries, Contributor:\u00a0Pieter Sjoerd Hasper","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Arnzen2021","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2021","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Aristotle's theory of eternal continuous motion and his argument from everlasting change and motion to the existence of an unmoved primary cause of motion, provided in book VIII of his Physics, is one of the most influential and persistent doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, the exact wording of Aristotle's discourse is doubtful and contentious at many places. The present critical edition of Ishaq ibn Hunayn's Arabic translation (9th c.) is supposed to replace the faulty edition by A. Badawi and aims at contributing to the clarification of these textual difficulties by means of a detailed collation of the Arabic text with the most important Greek manuscripts, supported by comprehensive Greek and Arabic glossaries. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NW1zXhIu1ijxgPf","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1405,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Scientia Graeco-Arabica","volume":"30","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Greek manuscripts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
Title | The Last Days of the Academy at Athens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1969 |
Published in | Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society |
Pages | 7-29 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Cameron, Alan |
Editor(s) | Kenney, Edward J. , Dawe, Roger D. |
Translator(s) |
Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at Athens in a . d . 529—the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f Monte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and medieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly symbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who left Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely resembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they discovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo sophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects were no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their disappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate return, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were just then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee that they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several misconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, some not even considered. What was Justinian’s motive? Did he give the last push to a tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually succeed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1046","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1046,"authors_free":[{"id":1591,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":20,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cameron, Alan ","free_first_name":"Alan","free_last_name":"Cameron","norm_person":{"id":20,"first_name":"Alan","last_name":"Cameron","full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/143568914","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2332,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":21,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kenney, Edward J.","free_first_name":"Edward J.","free_last_name":"Kenney","norm_person":{"id":21,"first_name":"Edward J. ","last_name":"Kenney","full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121559602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2333,"entry_id":1046,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":22,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","free_first_name":"Roger D. ","free_last_name":"Dawe","norm_person":{"id":22,"first_name":"Roger D. ","last_name":"Dawe","full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131727796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens","main_title":{"title":"The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"},"abstract":"Even those who know nothing else o f Justinian know that he closed the Academy at \r\nAthens in a . d . 529\u2014the very year that St Benedict had founded the monastery o f \r\nMonte Cassino.1 For those who like schematic boundaries between the ancient and \r\nmedieval worlds, between the pagan past and the Christian future, here is a truly \r\nsymbolic date.The romantic sequel is hardly less familiar:2 the seven out-of-work Platonists who \r\nleft Athens for Persia, which under its new King Chosroes they had heard closely \r\nresembled the ideal state their master had written of. On their arrival, alas, they \r\ndiscovered that Chosroes, while amiable enough and genuinely interested in philo\u00ad\r\nsophy, was far from being the philosopher-king they had dreamed of. And his subjects \r\nwere no less corrupt than the Romans. The disillusioned philosophers confessed their \r\ndisappointment to the king, who not only graciously consented to their immediate \r\nreturn, but even went so far as to make Justinian write into the peace treaty they were \r\njust then concluding (September 532) a safe conduct home for all seven and a guarantee \r\nthat they would be allowed to live out their lives in Roman territory in peace as pagans.This much is well known. But some details are unclear, others unexplored. Several \r\nmisconceptions prevail. A number of relevant texts have never been properly exploited, \r\nsome not even considered. What was Justinian\u2019s motive? Did he give the last push to \r\na tottering edifice, or destroy a thriving intellectual centre? Indeed, did he actually \r\nsucceed in destroying anything at all? What did the philosophers do on their return? [Introduction, p. 7]","btype":2,"date":"1969","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FwNaicAoI9i8Wka","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":20,"full_name":"Cameron, Alan ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":21,"full_name":"Kenney, Edward J. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":22,"full_name":"Dawe, Roger D. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1046,"section_of":1601,"pages":"7-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1601,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Proceedings of the Cambridge philological society","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kennery_Dawe1969","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1969","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The objects of the Society are the furtherance of classical studies, particularly the discussion and publication of critical researches on the literature and civilization of Greece and Rome. Any classical scholar is eligible for membership. The subscription of a resident in Cambridge is \u00a31 10s. annually, and of a member resident elsewhere, 12s. 6d. annually. Members receive notices of all meetings of the Society and of its publications. Any library may subscribe to the Society and receive copies of its publications. The subscription for libraries is \u00a31 10s. annually.\r\n\r\nThe Society is responsible for two series of publications. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, containing papers read at the Society and other articles by members, appears annually. Contributions intended for the Proceedings should be addressed to Dr. R. D. Dawe, Trinity College, Cambridge. Supplements to the Proceedings, consisting of monographs, appear occasionally, less frequently, and at irregular intervals. This series is designed to accommodate works of intermediate size, i.e., of about 100 pages.\r\n\r\nMembers of the Society are invited to submit proposals for monographs to be published in this series. Proposals should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. Applications for membership, and all other correspondence relating to the Society, should be addressed to Mr. H. J. Easterling, Trinity College, Cambridge. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2Aa8zUMrmYCuniC","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1601,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"New Series No. 15","volume":"195","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Last Days of the Academy at Athens"]}
Title | The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 295-326 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius’ works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus’ Encheiridion, on Aristotle’s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus’ work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus’ Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes’ Tekhnê. [conclusion p. 326] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/SguvcKAd2fhClm6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"670","_score":null,"_source":{"id":670,"authors_free":[{"id":982,"entry_id":670,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":983,"entry_id":670,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources","main_title":{"title":"The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources"},"abstract":"Here, therefore, are the conclusions to which one might be led as regards Simplicius\u2019 works. We have extant: the commentaries on Epictetus\u2019 Encheiridion, on Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo, Physics, Categories, and probably on his De Anima. Lost, though attested in a more or less certain fashion: a commentary on the first book of Euclid\u2019s Elements, a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics, a commentary on Iamblichus\u2019 work devoted to the Pythagorean sect, an epitome of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics (if the commentary on the De Anima, where one finds a reference to this work, is authentic), and perhaps a commentary on Hermogenes\u2019 Tekhn\u00ea. [conclusion p. 326]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/SguvcKAd2fhClm6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":670,"section_of":200,"pages":"295-326","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":200,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1990","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1990","abstract":"The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told \r\nat book length. Here it is assembled for the fi rst time by drawing both on some \r\nof the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest \r\nresearch. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar \r\neven to specialists in the fi eld. Th e philosophical interest of the commentators \r\nhas been illustrated elsewhere. 1 Th e aim here is not so much to do this again as \r\nto set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further \r\nphilosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place. \r\n Th e importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the \r\nthought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, \r\npartly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek \r\nphilosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical \r\nworks. Still more signifi cant is their profound infl uence, uncovered in some of the \r\nchapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. Th is was due \r\npartly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire \r\nmedieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle \r\ntransformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian \r\nChurch. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in \r\nthe philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers. [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/b7EaNXJNckqKKqB","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":200,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"2","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Life and Works of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources"]}
Title | The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories |
Pages | 9-29 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chase, Michael |
Editor(s) | Newton, Lloyd A. |
Translator(s) |
The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-Fārābī may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius’ commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain. In a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-Fārābī, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today. It included works—the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas’ case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-Fārābī—which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius. As we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-Fārābī and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-Fārābī, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy. There are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-Fārābī interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-Fārābī, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect. The contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-Fārābī may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul’s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods. What seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-Fārābī, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-Fārābī with Porphyry. Wayne Hankey has written: "Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge." Such ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius’ commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-Fārābī writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next. Philosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the “Know thyself”, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy. Indeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge. Whatever may have been Iamblichus’ particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education. When in 946 the traveler al-Mas‘ūdī visited Harrān in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan Sābians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading “He who knows his nature becomes god,” which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato’s Alcibiades 133 C. When we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-Fārābī went to Harrān at about the time of al-Mas‘ūdī’s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-Fārābī as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar. In al-Fārābī’s noetics, the potential intellect (al-‘aql bi’l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-‘aql bi’l-fi‘l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself. Unlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles. The human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul’s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles—that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter—in the same way as it knows its own essence. This occurs at the third of al-Fārābī’s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-‘aql al-mustafād). Thus, for al-Fārābī, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions. At a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter. The way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-Fārābī, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-Fārābī as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"609","_score":null,"_source":{"id":609,"authors_free":[{"id":860,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}},{"id":861,"entry_id":609,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":26,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","free_first_name":"Lloyd A. ","free_last_name":"Newton","norm_person":{"id":26,"first_name":"Lloyd A. ","last_name":"Newton","full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137965583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b","main_title":{"title":"The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"},"abstract":"The particular parallels we have noted between Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may be indicative of a deeper similarity, which Simplicius\u2019 commentaries, including that on the Categories, may help to explain.\r\n\r\nIn a reversal of traditional viewpoints, recent commentators have argued that the philosophies of both Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, usually considered as followers of the Peripatetic school, are in fact basically Platonist. Paradoxically, however, the same scholars have also argued that neither of these philosophers had actually read Plato. This odd situation can be explained by the nature of the sources of both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, which present definite similarities. Neither had access to complete translations of the works of Plato. Both were consequently forced to rely on the works of Aristotle, but this was an Aristotelian corpus quite unlike the one studied in the West today.\r\n\r\nIt included works\u2014the Liber de Causis was most influential in Thomas\u2019 case, while the Theology of Aristotle may have played an analogous role in the case of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2014which we now know to be apocryphal compilations of Neoplatonic texts deriving from Proclus, Plotinus, and possibly Porphyry. Equally importantly, however, it included Neoplatonic commentaries on the genuine works of Aristotle, including those by Simplicius.\r\n\r\nAs we have glimpsed, the philosophy of both al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b and Thomas Aquinas is profoundly influenced by the kind of Neoplatonizing interpretation of Aristotle that fills the commentaries of Simplicius, Ammonius, Themistius, and other late antique professors of philosophy. These commentaries are the source of most of the common elements in their thought, the most crucial of which is no doubt the idea of the ultimate reconcilability of Plato and Aristotle. According to both Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, both Plato and Aristotle teach that there is a single divine cause that perpetually distributes being to all entities in a continuous, graded hierarchy.\r\n\r\nThere are, of course, also profound differences in the ways Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b interpreted and utilized the doctrines they both received from the Alexandrian commentators. For Thomas, who (certainly indirectly) follows Iamblichus in this regard, philosophy occupies a subordinate position within theology, while for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, whatever his genuine religious beliefs may have been, philosophy remains the nec plus ultra, capable of providing ultimate happiness through conjunction with the Agent Intellect.\r\n\r\nThe contrasting attitudes of Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b may, in turn, be traceable to a similar contrast within late antique Neoplatonism. Porphyry of Tyre was considered by his successors to have held that philosophy alone was sufficient for salvation, consisting in the soul\u2019s definitive return to the intelligible world whence it came, while Iamblichus placed the emphasis on the need for religion, in the form of theurgical operations and prayers, and the grace of the gods.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to have been at stake in the arguments between the two was ultimately no less than the nature of philosophy: is it the ultimate discipline, sufficient for happiness, as Porphyry held, or is it merely an ancilla theologiae, as was the view of Iamblichus? Thomas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, who had at least some knowledge of these debates through the intermediary of such sources as Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories, seem to have prolonged this controversy, Thomas siding with Iamblichus and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b with Porphyry.\r\n\r\nWayne Hankey has written:\r\n\r\n \"Not only for both [Iamblichus and Aquinas] is philosophy contained within theology, and theology contained within religion, but also, for both, centuries its great teachers are priests and saints. In order to be doing philosophy as spiritual exercise belonging to a way of life, we need not engage directly in self-knowledge.\"\r\n\r\nSuch ideas were anathema to Porphyry, the other great Neoplatonist whose ideas were transmitted to posterity by, among other sources, Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the Categories. For the Tyrian thinker, as for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b writing some six centuries after him, philosophy is not subordinate to religion, nor are its teachers priests or saints, but it is autonomous and capable, all by itself, of ensuring human felicity both in this life and the next.\r\n\r\nPhilosophy for Porphyry was indeed a way of life, an important part of which was reading and commenting on the philosophical texts of the ancient Masters. For Porphyry, however, who wrote a treatise On the \u201cKnow thyself\u201d, as for the entire ancient tradition which, as Pierre Hadot has shown, considered philosophy to be a way of life, self-knowledge was the indispensable starting-point for all philosophy.\r\n\r\nIndeed, one may question whether this was not the case for Iamblichus as well: it was he, after all, who established the First Alcibiades as the first Platonic dialogue to be read and studied in the Neoplatonic curriculum; but the skopos or goal of this dialogue, for Iamblichus, was none other than self-knowledge.\r\n\r\nWhatever may have been Iamblichus\u2019 particular view, the Hellenic tradition on the whole was unanimous on the crucial importance of self-knowledge as the starting-point for philosophical education.\r\n\r\nWhen in 946 the traveler al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b visited Harr\u0101n in Mesopotamia, center of the pagan S\u0101bians, he saw, inscribed on the door-knocker of the central temple, an inscription in Syriac reading \u201cHe who knows his nature becomes god,\u201d which is, as Tardieu was the first to recognize, a reference to Plato\u2019s Alcibiades 133 C.\r\n\r\nWhen we recall that, according to some of his biographers, al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b went to Harr\u0101n at about the time of al-Mas\u2018\u016bd\u012b\u2019s visit to complete his studies of the Aristotelian Organon, one is not surprised to find that self-knowledge is as essential for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as it was for Porphyry, with several of whose works the Second Master seems to have been familiar.\r\n\r\nIn al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s noetics, the potential intellect (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-quwwah) becomes an intellect in act (al-\u2018aql bi\u2019l-fi\u2018l) when, by abstracting the forms in matter from their material accompanying circumstances, it receives these disembodied forms within itself.\r\n\r\nUnlike the forms stamped in wax, however, which affect only the surface of the receptive matter, these forms penetrate the potential intellect so thoroughly that it becomes identical with the forms it has intelligized. Once it has intelligized all such intelligible forms, the intellect becomes, in act, the totality of intelligibles.\r\n\r\nThe human intellect has thus become an intelligible, and when it intelligizes itself, it becomes an intelligible in act. Thus, for the soul, or rather the soul\u2019s intellect, to know itself is to become, quite literally, identical with its essence, and it can henceforth intelligize all other separate intelligibles\u2014that is, those that have never been in conjunction with matter\u2014in the same way as it knows its own essence.\r\n\r\nThis occurs at the third of al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b\u2019s four levels or kinds of intellection, the intellectus adeptus (al-\u2018aql al-mustaf\u0101d).\r\n\r\nThus, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, self-knowledge plays a crucial role both at the beginning and at a fairly advanced stage of philosophical progress. At the outset, the student must, with the help of an experienced professor, look within himself to find the first intelligibles innate within him which, once elaborated, clarified, and classified, will serve as the premises of the syllogisms he will use as the starting-point of his logical deductions.\r\n\r\nAt a later stage, when through abstraction he has accumulated a sufficient number of intelligibles, he will know his own intellect, and therefore himself, thoroughly. This in turn is the precondition for being able to know the intelligible Forms and separate intelligences which, unlike the material forms incorporated in the sensible world, have never been in conjunction with matter.\r\n\r\nThe way is henceforth open for the permanent conjunction with the Agent Intellect which, according to al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, constitutes felicity: that felicity which, for al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b as for Simplicius, is the only goal and justification for doing philosophy. [conclusion p. 25-29]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yzntZRUqTC8wnrp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":26,"full_name":"Newton, Lloyd A. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":609,"section_of":275,"pages":"9-29","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":275,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Newton2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2008","abstract":"Medieval commentary writing has often been described as a way of \"doing philosophy,\" and not without reason. The various commentaries on Aristotle's Categories we have from this period did not simply elaborate a dialectical exercise for training students; rather, they provided their authors with an unparalleled opportunity to work through crucial philosophical problems, many of which remain with us today. As such, this unique commentary tradition is important not only in its own right, but also to the history and development of philosophy as a whole. The contributors to this volume take a fresh look at it, examining a wide range of medieval commentators, from Simplicius to John Wyclif, and discussing such issues as the compatibility of Platonism with Aristotelianism; the influence of Avicenna; the relationship between grammar, logic, and metaphysics; the number of the categories; the status of the categories as a science realism vs. nominalism; and the relationship between categories.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ouJZQT7V8FBvg8Y","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":275,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b"]}
Title | The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Pages | 95-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chriti, Maria |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1512,"authors_free":[{"id":2625,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":561,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chriti, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Chriti","norm_person":{"id":561,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Chriti","full_name":"Chriti, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2628,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2629,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the \u201cfall\u201dof the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul\u2019s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul\u2019s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul\u2019s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of \u2018diversity\u2019in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of \u2018decay\u2019and \u2018obligation\u2019. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":561,"full_name":"Chriti, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1512,"section_of":1513,"pages":"95-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1513,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gpbk6H9CplQZVge","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"]}
Title | The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1991 |
Published in | Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition |
Pages | 175-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. , Robinson, Howard |
Translator(s) |
This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators—Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed—towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle. Aristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato’s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle’s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations. Thanks to Marinus’ Life of Proclus and Damascius’ Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato’s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or ‘minor’ mysteries. So, in directing Proclus’ studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and ‘does not leap over the threshold’; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato’s philosophy after studying Aristotle. I hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle’s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"640","_score":null,"_source":{"id":640,"authors_free":[{"id":909,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":910,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":911,"entry_id":640,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":139,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Robinson, Howard","free_first_name":"Howard","free_last_name":"Robinson","norm_person":{"id":139,"first_name":"Robinson","last_name":"Howard ","full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172347122","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This brief comparison between Plato and Aristotle reveals once again the attitude of our Alexandrian commentators\u2014Philoponus, Olympiodorus, and Elias in the case I have just discussed\u2014towards the philosophers: for them, the two philosophers are mutually complementary, but the genius of the divine Plato is superior to Aristotle.\r\n\r\nAristotle only knows how to establish logical rules, which he discovers by analyzing the logical elements in Plato\u2019s work, whereas Plato practiced logical proof spontaneously and intuitively without formulating the rules for it. Here again, we meet the principle of Aristotle\u2019s inferiority to Plato, which determines the harmonizing trend as well as its limitations.\r\n\r\nThanks to Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus and Damascius\u2019 Life of Isidore, we know the role of the study of the works of Aristotle with commentary in the teaching of the School of Athens at the time when Syrianus, then Proclus, then Isidore ran the School. Syrianus initiated Proclus into Plato\u2019s mystical doctrine after Proclus had been adequately prepared by studying the works of Aristotle, as if, so to speak, by way of preparatory or \u2018minor\u2019 mysteries.\r\n\r\nSo, in directing Proclus\u2019 studies, Syrianus proceeds in due order, as Marinus emphasizes, and \u2018does not leap over the threshold\u2019; in other words, Proclus proceeds in the set order and does not miss out any step in the teaching. Isidore, too, came to Plato\u2019s philosophy after studying Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI hope to have shown in this paper that the part played by the study of and commentary on Aristotle\u2019s works remained the same up to the end of Neoplatonism. Aristotle was never studied for his own sake by the Neoplatonists, but always as a necessary preparation for the philosophy of Plato. [conclusion p. 188-189]","btype":2,"date":"1991","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mXkoXV2wq7SgBs3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":139,"full_name":"Robinson, Howard ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":640,"section_of":354,"pages":"175-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":354,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal\/Robinson1991","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1991","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1991","abstract":"This volume contains papers by a group of leading experts on Aristotle and the later Aristotelian tradition of Neoplatonism. The discussion ranges from Aristotle's treatment of Parmenides, the most important pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, to Neoplatonic and medieval use of Aristotle, for which Aristotle himself set guidelines in his discussions of his predecessors. Traces of these guidelines can be seen in the work of Plotinus, and that of the later Greek commentators on Aristotle. The study of these commentators, and the recognition of the philosophical interest and importance of the ideas which they expressed in their commentaries, is an exciting new development in ancient philosophy to which this book makes a unique and distinguished contribution.[official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/jxVlK6YghFkMcPK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":354,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teaching of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"]}
Title | The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 185-223 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, C. |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er: The souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (ἐνδυσαμέναις) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] – for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (γενομέναις ἀπαθέσι παθητικαῖς, ἀμορφώτοις μορφωτικαῖς) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate. Myths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-scène of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are ‘both together and have a twofold intellect’, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect ‘is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,’ our true intellect ‘is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.’ [conclusion p. 211-212] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iQkklQKce7ANXjV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1170","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1170,"authors_free":[{"id":1746,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, C.","free_first_name":"C.","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2507,"entry_id":1170,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis","main_title":{"title":"The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"},"abstract":"Even Platonists, it seems, have to accept that the intellective soul, when connected to this earthy body, can never be entirely without imagination, not only in (1) practical thought or in (2) understanding sensible objects or in (3) mathematics, but even in its most excellent thought, (4) the contemplation of the intelligible forms. The role of imagination is, however, different in the four cases, as we have seen. Therefore, a good philosophical teacher will not only warn his students of the danger of imaginations, which may distort their thoughts, but also helps them to train and discipline their imagination so that it may be an obedient servant of the intellect. For that reason, he will use images and fantastic stories besides rational arguments. As Proclus explains in his introduction to his commentary of the myth of Er:\r\n\r\nThe souls, which are by essence intellectual and full of incorporeal and intellectual reasons, have put on (\u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2) the imaginative intellect and cannot live without it in this place of generation [...] \u2013 for these souls, which have become impassible passible and without figures figurative (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03ce\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2) this teaching through myths [as here in the myth of Er] is appropriate.\r\n\r\nMyths are particularly needed for those who only live according to imagination and only have practised the passive intellect, as is the case with the vulgar masses, who are incapable of following a purely rational argument. By contrast, some exceptional souls, which have set their mind on pure intellections, will be content with the intellectual light of the truth without needing the imaginary mise-en-sc\u00e8ne of myths. But for us, Proclus says, who are \u2018both together and have a twofold intellect\u2019, the one which we really are and the one we have put on and projected outwards (i.e. the passive intellect linked to imagination), we find pleasures both in the fictive clothing of the story and in its deeper truth. Whereas the imaginative intellect \u2018is stricken by the external and becomes thus ready for the path towards science,\u2019 our true intellect \u2018is nourished by what is inside the stories and becomes the contemplator of truth.\u2019 [conclusion p. 211-212]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iQkklQKce7ANXjV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1170,"section_of":289,"pages":"185-223","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Soul never thinks withous a Phantasm: How platonic commentators interpret a controversal aristotelian Thesis"]}
Title | The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1997 |
Published in | Aristotle and after |
Pages | 91-107 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gaskin, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called ‘sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are ‘complete’ lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex ‘complete’ lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, ‘incomplete’ lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rhêma) ‘writes’ and the complete sentence (logos) ‘Socrates writes’ should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). In this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1177","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1177,"authors_free":[{"id":1751,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":132,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","free_first_name":"Richard ","free_last_name":"Gaskin","norm_person":{"id":132,"first_name":"Richard ","last_name":"Gaskin","full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1049853571","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2358,"entry_id":1177,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition","main_title":{"title":"The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"},"abstract":"As far as traditional classifications go, the Stoics count as materialists. But it is notorious that there were four things in their world-view which do not fit this caracterization: time, place, the void and the so-called \u2018sayables', or lekta (SE AM 10.218 = FDS 720). Lekta consist of three main kinds of quasi-linguistic item: centrally, simple propositions (as well as certain non-assertoric, but grammatically autonomous, items) are \u2018complete\u2019 lekta (DL 7 .6-8 = FDS 696, 874; SE AM 8.70-74). From these propositions, more complex \u2018complete\u2019 lekta maybe constructed, such as conditionals (DL 7.71) or syllogisms (DL 7.63). And within the structure of complete lekta, \u2018incomplete\u2019 lekta, such as predicates, maybe discerned. I call lekta quasi-linguistic, rather than linguistic, because, as we learn from an important passage in Sextus (AM 8.11-13 = FDS 67), the Stoics distinguished lekta both from language and from physical objects in the world. Hence linguistic items such as the verb (rh\u00eama) \u2018writes\u2019 and the complete sentence (logos) \u2018Socrates writes\u2019 should be kept rigorously apart from their corresponding lekta - the predicate (katigorema) writes and the complete proposition (axidma) Socrates writes - which the linguistic expressions signify (semainein: SE AM 8.11 - 12, DL 7.56, 58, 65). \r\nIn this paper I shall examine the Stoic treatment of the main constituents of the complete lekton: cases and predicates. I shall argue that cases are, like predicates, (incomplete) lekta, and that the verbal noun played a central role in Stoic thinking about lekta. In the light of these reflections, I shall conclude with some speculative remarks on the unity of the proposition. [Introduction, p. 91]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tocHWc6xfMEeg9C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":132,"full_name":"Gaskin, Richard ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1177,"section_of":199,"pages":"91-107","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Stoics on cases, predicates, and the unity of the proposition"]}
Title | The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 225-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Deckers, Daniel , Brockmann, Christian , Valente, Stefano |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1575","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1575,"authors_free":[{"id":2748,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2749,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":570,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Deckers, Daniel","free_first_name":"Daniel","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":{"id":570,"first_name":"Daniel","last_name":"Deckers","full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1145076017","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2750,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":473,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Brockmann, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":{"id":473,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Brockmann","full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137576218","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2751,"entry_id":1575,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":571,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Valente, Stefano","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":{"id":571,"first_name":"Stefano","last_name":"Valente","full_name":"Valente, Stefano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1147906939","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/r4x9UiKcqVzpdhL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":570,"full_name":"Deckers, Daniel","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":473,"full_name":"Brockmann, Christian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":571,"full_name":"Valente, Stefano","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1575,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Text Tradition of the 'Commentary On the Soul' Attributed to Simplicius"]}
Title | The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre Überlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die frühe Neuzeit |
Pages | 225-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
Editor(s) | Christian Brockmann , Daniel Deckers , Stefano Valente |
Translator(s) |
About fifty years ago I published together with Fernand Bossier an article todemonstrate that theCommentary On the Soultraditionally attributed toSimplicius was not his work, but most probably that of a fellow member ofthe Athenian Academy, Priscian of Lydia.1An examination of the text tradi-tion of the commentary did not yield any indications to question the tradi-tional attribution. Nevertheless, arguments based on style, content, self-refer-ences are so convincing that it is now commonly accepted that the author ofthe commentary is not Simplicius.2The Hamburg colloquium offered me theincentive for a new and comprehensive study of the complicated text tradi-tion of this commentary, which enjoyed an extraordinary fortune in the re-ception of Aristotle’s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author’sname ‘Simplicius’ as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"245","_score":null,"_source":{"id":245,"authors_free":[{"id":314,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2775,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Christian Brockmann","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Brockmann","norm_person":null},{"id":2776,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Daniel Deckers ","free_first_name":"Daniel ","free_last_name":"Deckers","norm_person":null},{"id":2777,"entry_id":245,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stefano Valente","free_first_name":"Stefano","free_last_name":"Valente","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"},"abstract":"About fifty years ago I published together with Fernand Bossier an article todemonstrate that theCommentary On the Soultraditionally attributed toSimplicius was not his work, but most probably that of a fellow member ofthe Athenian Academy, Priscian of Lydia.1An examination of the text tradi-tion of the commentary did not yield any indications to question the tradi-tional attribution. Nevertheless, arguments based on style, content, self-refer-ences are so convincing that it is now commonly accepted that the author ofthe commentary is not Simplicius.2The Hamburg colloquium offered me theincentive for a new and comprehensive study of the complicated text tradi-tion of this commentary, which enjoyed an extraordinary fortune in the re-ception of Aristotle\u2019s treatiseOn the Soulamong Byzantine and Renaissancescholars.3For practical reasons, I keep using in this contribution the author\u2019sname \u2018Simplicius\u2019 as it is known in the tradition but put it between singlequotations marks to distinguish him from the real Simplicius. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j1NGkXq4FVGx9hw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":245,"pubplace":"","publisher":"","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":{"id":245,"section_of":1573,"pages":"225-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1573,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung. Wichtige Etappen von der Antike bis in die fr\u00fche Neuzeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Brockmann\/Deckers\/Valente2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Von der Antike und der Sp\u00e4tantike bis ins Mittelalter und in die Neuzeit stellt die Kommentierung der aristotelischen Schriften eine der fundamentalen Formen philosophischer T\u00e4tigkeit dar. In diesem Sammelband werden wesentliche Etappen der griechischen Kommentartradition zu den Schriften des Aristoteles sowie ihre philosophische und kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung an ausgew\u00e4hlten Beispielen analysiert und interpretiert. Die Autorinnen und Autoren setzen sich dabei sowohl mit den Manuskripten und der \u00dcberlieferung einzelner Schriften als auch mit der Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Aristotelischen Philosophie auseinander.\r\n\r\nDer Kernbestand der hier versammelten Beitr\u00e4ge geht auf die dreit\u00e4gige internationale Konferenz \u201eAristoteles-Kommentare und ihre \u00dcberlieferung in Sp\u00e4tantike, Mittelalter und Renaissance\" (26.\u201328.10.2017) zur\u00fcck, die dank der F\u00f6rderung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung an der Universit\u00e4t Hamburg am Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures stattgefunden hat. [publisher's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABLmF9W1WrH4QDt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1573,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"44","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":245,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"unpublished","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":["The Text Tradition of the Commentary On the Soul attributed to Simplicius"]}
Title | The Text of Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 246-266 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Tarán, Leonardo |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"726","_score":null,"_source":{"id":726,"authors_free":[{"id":1085,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1086,"entry_id":726,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"My main purpose here is to offer reasons why a new and truly critical edition of Simplicius' commentary is necessary. To do so, in what follows, I shall have to point out some of the shortcomings to be found in Diels' edition of this work. [p. 246]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSJkdX2PYdHh3n2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":726,"section_of":171,"pages":"246-266","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Text of Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
Title | The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus’ Canon |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 81-102 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hatzimichali, Myrto |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato’s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle’s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus’ Pinakes. A scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new ‘editions’ and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1537","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1537,"authors_free":[{"id":2681,"entry_id":1537,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzimichali, Myrto","free_first_name":"Myrto","free_last_name":"Hatzimichali","norm_person":null},{"id":2682,"entry_id":1537,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon","main_title":{"title":"The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon"},"abstract":"If we recall at this point the information gathered on the state of Plato\u2019s text in the first century BCE, we can see that by comparison the study of Aristotle\u2019s text was indeed revolutionized. In the case of the Aristotelian corpus, our sources tell a story of true peripeteia, with the appearance of new texts or at least new copies with special claims of antiquity and pedigree, and with the standardization and ordering of the canon in Andronicus\u2019 Pinakes.\r\n\r\nA scrutiny of our sources has shown that it was the processes of cataloging, canon formation, and corpus organization that had the greatest impact on the texts we now read, and not the appearance of new \u2018editions\u2019 and text-critical initiatives. If this appears counterintuitive, we should remember that judgments about the importance or otherwise of ancient editorial activity can be misleading if they are too dependent on modern experiences and expectations. [conclusion p. 102]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hzJ6JONomuuLaQX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1537,"section_of":1419,"pages":"81-102","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the First Century BCE: Andronicus\u2019 Canon"]}
Title | The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | Reading Plato in antiquity |
Pages | 185-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk |
Translator(s) |
In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization. Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff). As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one. There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear. In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle. I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"916","_score":null,"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"]}
Title | The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 329-350 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wildberg, Christian |
Editor(s) | Destrée, Pierre , Zingano, Marco |
Translator(s) |
The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of "impetus" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":427,"authors_free":[{"id":573,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":360,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wildberg, Christian","free_first_name":"Christian","free_last_name":"Wildberg","norm_person":{"id":360,"first_name":"Christian","last_name":"Wildberg","full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139018964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":574,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":90,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","norm_person":{"id":90,"first_name":"Pierre ","last_name":"Destr\u00e9e","full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1085171485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":576,"entry_id":427,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":472,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zingano, Marco","free_first_name":"Marco","free_last_name":"Zingano","norm_person":{"id":472,"first_name":"Marco","last_name":"Zingano","full_name":"Zingano, Marco","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1102225592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"},"abstract":"The text explores the historical development of the concept of free will, drawing parallels with the evolution of understanding projectile motion. Three distinct periods are identified: an initial stage marked by a misunderstanding of projectile motion, where objects were thought to require continuous external motion; a second stage where the concept of \"impetus\" was introduced to explain forced motion at a distance; and a final stage, ushered in by Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, where the correct understanding of inertia emerged. The discovery of free will is compared to the discovery of the will as a distinct human faculty in late antiquity. Similar to the concept of impetus, the will is depicted as capable of being strong or weak and has significant influence over human actions. The philosophical discussion surrounding free will is likened to the debates on projectile motion, with various perspectives on its existence and nature. Some argue for the existence of free will, while others contend that it is unnecessary and incoherent. The text concludes by pointing out the need for a deeper understanding of the historical context and metaphysical assumptions underlying the concept of free will. It suggests that the concept of free will is a remnant of past intellectual certainty about metaphysical truths and may not be as morally neutral as commonly believed. The modern discussion on free will is encouraged to consider its historical development and potential implications more carefully. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOZ7OMN3pKwTAfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":360,"full_name":"Wildberg, Christian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":90,"full_name":"Destr\u00e9e, Pierre ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":472,"full_name":"Zingano, Marco","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":427,"section_of":329,"pages":"329-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":329,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"What is up to us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Destr\u00e9e2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"The problem of responsibility in moral philosophy has been lively debated in the last decades, especially since the publication of Harry Frankfurt's seminal paper, 'Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility' (1969). Compatibilists - also known as 'soft' determinists - and, on the other side, incompatibilists - libertarians and 'hard' determinists - are the main contenders in this major academic controversy. The debate goes back to Antiquity. After Aristotle, compatibilists, and especially the Stoics, debated this issue with the incompatibilists, notably Epicurus (though his classification as an incompatibilist has been disputed in modern scholarship), Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plutarch.\r\n\r\nThe problem debated at that time and the problem debated nowadays are fundamentally the same, even though the terms and the concepts evolved over the centuries. In Antiquity, the central notion was that of 'what is up to us', or 'what depends on us'. The present volume brings together twenty contributions devoted to examining the problem of moral responsibility as it arises in Antiquity in direct connection with the concept of what is up to us - to eph' h\u00eamin, in Greek, or in nostra potestate and in nobis, in its Latin counterparts, aiming to promote classical scholarship, and to shed some light on the contemporary issues as well.\r\n\r\nWith contributions by Marcelo D. Boeri, Mauro Bonazzi, Susanne Bobzien, Pierre Destr\u00e9e, Javier Eche\u00f1ique, Dorothea Frede, Michael Frede, Lloyd P. Gerson, Laura Liliana G\u00f3mez, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat, Christoph Horn, Monte Ransom Johnson, Stefano Maso, Susan Sauv\u00e9 Meyer, Pierre-Marie Morel, Ricardo Salles, Carlos Steel, Daniela Patrizia Taormina, Emmanuele Vimercati, Katja Maria Vogt, Christian Wildberg and Marco Zingano. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WCz3sdLMsMTkFmE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":329,"pubplace":"Sankt Augustin","publisher":"Academia Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Will and its Freedom: Epictetus and Simplicius on what is up to us"]}
Title | The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Relectures néoplatoniciennes de la théologie d’Aristote |
Pages | 103-122 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ross, Alberto |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1561","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1561,"authors_free":[{"id":2727,"entry_id":1561,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ross, Alberto","free_first_name":"Alberto","free_last_name":"Ross","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GNIHfMbbi3GaOjc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1561,"section_of":1559,"pages":"103-122","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1559,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Relectures n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ross2020","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"On the question of the divine, as on others, the Neoplatonic tradition has gradually made the reading of Aristotle a philosophical preriquisite. The contributions gathered in this volume aim at understanding how the Neoplatonic readers of Aristotle\u2019s theology interpreted, commented on and criticized these doctrines in the light of their philosophical orientations, but also how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was able to influence, in return, their own conceptions and nourish the Neoplatonic approach to the divine. In short, it is a question of specifying both the different hermeunetic uses to which the Aristotelian philosophy of the divine has lent itself and the conceptual effect of this reappropriation. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NRy52L806zUPIxF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1559,"pubplace":"Baden-Baden","publisher":"Academia","series":" International Aristotle Studies","volume":"9","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The causality of the prime mover in Simplicius"]}
Title | The commentators: their identity and their background |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
Pages | 35-51 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators’ methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates. The information most consistently available is the most useless—an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: “Proclus the Lycian,” “Simplicius the Cilician,” “Priscian the Lydian.” Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled “Alexandrian,” too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in. Nevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius’ reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there. Unfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius. Two works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias’ Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer’s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below. At an earlier period, Marinus’ Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary—namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch’s grandson Archiadas and Proclus’ contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus’ ascent to its summit. In addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius. There are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius’ Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His—probably—contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher. One of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius. Let us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed. We can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists’ Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul. Since, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius’ De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus’ influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus’ commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name. It is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus’ lead was followed by at least some—perhaps avoiding at this stage adding "Athenians"—at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius’ expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus’ influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible. Its extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert—an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end. After Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist. Themistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy’s funds, from whatever source these came. Themistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone’s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1449,"authors_free":[{"id":2431,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2444,"entry_id":1449,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The commentators: their identity and their background","main_title":{"title":"The commentators: their identity and their background"},"abstract":"While in the previous chapter we have been looking at the overall similarity of the commentators\u2019 methods and assumptions, it is now time to try to say something about them as individuals and the work they produced. This is not an easy task. We may have lives of the most important philosophers, Plotinus and Proclus, and even of an apparent nonentity like Isidore, but for those who wrote commentaries on Aristotle, we can often do little more than establish places of activity and approximate dates.\r\n\r\nThe information most consistently available is the most useless\u2014an indication, sometimes no more than a manuscript tradition with all the doubts attaching to that, of the town or area a man came from or was known by: \u201cProclus the Lycian,\u201d \u201cSimplicius the Cilician,\u201d \u201cPriscian the Lydian.\u201d Those who operated in Alexandria are usually labeled \u201cAlexandrian,\u201d too consistently for the label to be anything more than an indication that that was where they worked or spent an important part of their careers. Thus, all we know, in most cases, is where some of the writers we are concerned with began their lives, and then only to the extent of knowing what part of the world it was in.\r\n\r\nNevertheless, some information on the commentators is provided by sources that tell us about them incidentally to their main aim. Damascius\u2019 reconstructed Life of Isidore is one such source: it deals in passing with those who were either personally or historically connected with the subject of the work. Much of the information about the relation between those who worked at Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries is derived from that source. In particular, most of the evidence about who studied with whom and where is to be found there.\r\n\r\nUnfortunately, by far the larger of two collections of excerpts in Photius (codd. 181 and 242), by whom most of the surviving contents have been preserved, comes from a particularly scrappy part of his work, so that we often do not know which snippets should be taken together, a point that affects, among other things, an important question about Ammonius.\r\n\r\nTwo works that do survive and give us some further help are Zacharias\u2019 Life of Severus, from which, though it concentrates on Christians, we can learn something about conditions in the schools of Alexandria as well as about their students and teachers, and the same writer\u2019s dialogue Ammonius, which provides rather less than its title might lead one to hope, being concerned primarily with matters in dispute between pagans and Christians, such as the eternity of the world and the creative activity of God. It tells us very little about Ammonius but does raise a question of some importance about his beliefs, with which we must deal below.\r\n\r\nAt an earlier period, Marinus\u2019 Life of Proclus, a document often distorted by the desire to fit biographical facts to philosophical notions, gives us some information about others who worked at Athens and are part of the story of Aristotelian commentary\u2014namely, Plutarch and Syrianus, who, Marinus tells us, were respectively master and pupil, as well as both being teachers of Proclus. In addition, he mentions persons about whom he gives us little or no other information, such as Plutarch\u2019s grandson Archiadas and Proclus\u2019 contemporary Domninus. Unfortunately, the Life does not proceed in chronological order because its structure depends on a framework of the Neoplatonic scale of virtues and Proclus\u2019 ascent to its summit.\r\n\r\nIn addition to what these sources provide, we have pieces of more or less incidental information from elsewhere, some of it not unimportant. Such are the dates infrequently given en passant in the commentaries and the occasional references to philosophy in both contemporary and later historians. Some of these references are notoriously difficult to interpret or even simply unreliable. In this category are the details of the exile of 529 and the possible return from it. In addition, there are entries in or from the lexica and other compilations so popular in late Classical antiquity and early Byzantine culture; some of these overlap both with each other and with the material found in Photius.\r\n\r\nThere are some figures in the tradition of Aristotelian commentary about whom we know almost nothing. Such are Asclepius, the editor of Ammonius\u2019 Metaphysics course, at least for Books A-Z, Olympiodorus in the next generation, and his presumed pupil Elias. His\u2014probably\u2014contemporary David is well known in the Armenian tradition but not in the Greek. The last three, as it happens, are all later than the last surviving Life of a philosopher.\r\n\r\nOne of the perversities of the distribution of information is that we are often better informed about those whose work has been lost but was clearly important in the tradition, like Plutarch, and even those whose work has been lost and may not have been important in the interpretation of either the Platonic or the Aristotelian writings in any case, like Isidore, than about the authors of considerable parts of our corpus of texts, like Ammonius and Simplicius.\r\n\r\nLet us now go back to the beginning and look at what we do know about those who contributed to the exposition of the De Anima, leaving aside Plotinus, whose contribution was the more general one of integrating Aristotelian psychology into Neoplatonic philosophy and about whose life we are reasonably well, if somewhat sporadically, informed.\r\n\r\nWe can say that Iamblichus, the initiator of the organization of the Neoplatonists\u2019 Aristotle and Plato course, and perhaps their Aristotle course as well, probably did not write a De Anima commentary, a matter we shall return to shortly, but Ps-Simplicius claims to follow the guidance he offered in his own treatise on the soul.\r\n\r\nSince, however, most of that has been lost, and Ps-Simplicius\u2019 De Anima commentary notoriously fails to provide the extensive documentation and specific attributions found in the other Simplicius commentaries, we can assess neither the real extent nor the specific details of Iamblichus\u2019 influence. That situation contrasts with what obtains in the case of their Categories commentaries: while in this case Iamblichus\u2019 commentary is lost, Simplicius refers to it constantly by name.\r\n\r\nIt is worth mentioning that Proclus does the same in his Timaeus commentary, showing that Iamblichus\u2019 lead was followed by at least some\u2014perhaps avoiding at this stage adding \"Athenians\"\u2014at both ends of the combined Aristotle and Plato course. Nevertheless, the combination of Ps-Simplicius\u2019 expression of intent in the De Anima commentary and what actually happens in other commentaries suggests that Iamblichus\u2019 influence on the exposition of the De Anima will not have been negligible.\r\n\r\nIts extent may or may not have been greater because of his place early in the story: though his exact dates cannot be established, they fall in the second half of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, making it possible that he was actually a pupil of Porphyry, as later writers assert\u2014an assertion that must, however, be treated with some care because of the notorious habit of ancient biographers and doxographers of arranging philosophers in chains of master-pupil relations, a habit that affects the whole history of Greek philosophy from Thales to the end.\r\n\r\nAfter Iamblichus, there is a gap in the history of Platonism and also of Aristotelian exposition. The latter is, however, partly filled by the anomalous figure of Themistius, partly because of the very anomaly that consists in his being a Peripatetic and standing outside the mainstream of philosophical development, which was by now almost entirely Platonist.\r\n\r\nThemistius differs from the other commentators in another respect too. Most of them were, as far as we know, the equivalent of professional philosophers today, producing philosophical research while earning their living by teaching, subsidized perhaps, in the case of those Neoplatonists working at Athens, by the Academy\u2019s funds, from whatever source these came.\r\n\r\nThemistius, on the other hand, was a diplomat and politician whose interest in Aristotle might be thought of as loosely analogous to Gladstone\u2019s in Homer. The commentaries were written early in his life, and there is no evidence that he ever returned to actual study of Aristotle, nor that he ever taught philosophy. Nor is there any evidence that will withstand scrutiny that he ever wrote on Plato, great as his admiration for him was. [introduction p. 35-38]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GBYzMZ4X3Nt0hsI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1449,"section_of":213,"pages":"35-51","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The commentators: their identity and their background"]}
Title | The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | undefined |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc |
Pages | 183-214 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Ulacco, Angela |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1567","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1567,"authors_free":[{"id":2736,"entry_id":1567,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy","main_title":{"title":"The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1567,"section_of":1566,"pages":"183-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1566,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Falsifications and Authority in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissanc","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2020","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Confronted with the shifting idea of the authority of a text and its transmission and reception in a variety of genres, settings and contexts, this collective volume envisages to enlarge and deepen our understanding of these notions by tangling literary forgery and emulation. Authority and authoritative literary productions provoke all kinds of interest and emulation. Hermeneutical techniques, detailed exegesis and historical critique are invoked to put authority, and indeed also possible falsifications, to the test. Scholars from various disciplines working on texts, either authoritative or forged, and stemming from different periods of time, reflect on these topics on a methodological basis and from a hermeneutical entrance. In doing so, a threefold axis for questioning the phenomenon is proposed, namely the motif of falsification, the mechanism or technique applied, and the direct or indirect effect of this fraud. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1566,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The creation of authority in Pseudo-Pythagorean texts and their reception in late ancient philosophy"]}
Title | The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 233-274 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Verrycken, Koenraad |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming—more or less conjecturally—a duality in Philoponus’ philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of ‘religious conviction’ only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another. In my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to ‘project’ the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ. To start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of ‘Philoponus 1’ and ‘Philoponus 2’, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus’ biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author’s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"449","_score":null,"_source":{"id":449,"authors_free":[{"id":601,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":347,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","free_first_name":"Koenraad","free_last_name":"Verrycken","norm_person":{"id":347,"first_name":"Koenraad","last_name":"Verrycken","full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1048689964","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":602,"entry_id":449,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology","main_title":{"title":"The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"},"abstract":"The position I should like to defend is to some extent intermediate between that of Gudeman and that of Ilvrard. I think Ilvrard is right in rejecting the hypothesis of Philoponus' conversion. But I also think Gudeman was right in assuming\u2014more or less conjecturally\u2014a duality in Philoponus\u2019 philosophical work. Both Gudeman and Ilvrard, however, pose the problem wrongly in terms of \u2018religious conviction\u2019 only. If Philoponus did not develop a Christian philosophy in his first philosophical period, that does not show that he must have been a pagan at that time. And if he was born a Christian, that does not establish that his philosophy must always have been Christian in character. Philosophy is one thing, religion another.\r\n\r\nIn my opinion, the problem should first be posed on the purely philosophical level: what does the author say? Only afterwards can one try to \u2018project\u2019 the results of the philosophical analysis onto the levels of biography and psychology. This is the method I employ.\r\n\r\nTo start with, I shall outline very briefly the main characteristics of the philosophical systems of \u2018Philoponus 1\u2019 and \u2018Philoponus 2\u2019, as I shall call them. Then I shall try to piece together something of what can reasonably be said about Philoponus\u2019 biography. Thirdly, I shall propose the first sketch of a new solution to the problem of the chronology of the author\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. I shall finish with some remarks on the development of Philoponus 2. [introduction p. 236]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d1kiVpaSlWKa7uY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":347,"full_name":"Verrycken, Koenraad","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":449,"section_of":1453,"pages":"233-274","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The development of Philoponus\u2019 thought and its chronology"]}
Title | The historiographical project of the Lyceum |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 117-165 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century. The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental. Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary. [conclusion p. 164-165] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their \"perfection\" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the pr\u00f4tos heuret\u00eas principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato\u2019s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.\r\n\r\nThe key notion of Aristotle\u2019s systematics was epist\u0113m\u0113, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.\r\n\r\nEach of these \"histories\" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of \"principles\" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.\r\n\r\nThis perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus\u2019 works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.\r\n[conclusion p. 164-165]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The historiographical project of the Lyceum"]}
Title | The history of astronomy |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 228-277 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus’ Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them. Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time. Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate. The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory. Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147). All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time. Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted. Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions. [introduction p. 228-230] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"The History of Astronomy, Eudemus\u2019 last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus\u2019 Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In A\u00ebtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.\r\n\r\nInteresting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus\u2019 and Theophrastus\u2019 material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.\r\n\r\nLet us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus\u2019 work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.\r\n\r\nThe number of books in the History of Astronomy (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2') as given in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus\u2019 theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus\u2019 disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 rendering of Callippus\u2019 theory.\r\n\r\nHence, Simplicius\u2019 evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus\u2019 work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius\u2019 three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).\r\n\r\nAll this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus\u2019 work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.\r\n\r\nAs for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius\u2019 predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus\u2019 Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus\u2019 works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.\r\n\r\nGenerally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus\u2019 summary of Posidonius\u2019 Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!\r\n\r\nIn the case of Eudemus, the commentator\u2019s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus\u2019 theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter\u2019s work is not available (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus\u2019 book, was at Simplicius\u2019 disposal.\r\n\r\nFurther, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then \u201camplified\u201d him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.\r\n\r\nAnother possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes\u2019 work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus\u2019 system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.\r\n\r\nHence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.\r\n[introduction p. 228-230]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csHTzFsKJd5J17a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The history of astronomy"]}
Title | The history of geometry |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
Pages | 166-214 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle’s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle’s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher’s writings (fr. 6). While Eudemus’ Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list. In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death). The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences. There is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus’ History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity. Although Eudemus’ works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus’ failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed. Meanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature. Eratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius. Thus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1427,"authors_free":[{"id":2238,"entry_id":1427,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of geometry","main_title":{"title":"The history of geometry"},"abstract":"We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle\u2019s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle\u2019s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher\u2019s writings (fr. 6).\r\n\r\nWhile Eudemus\u2019 Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus\u2019 works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus\u2019 works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener\u2019s suggestion that these were Eudemus\u2019 works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus\u2019 list.\r\n\r\nIn the same list, we find another work, \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2', which, contrary to Wehrli\u2019s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus\u2019 History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus\u2019 historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus\u2019 physical doxography and Meno\u2019s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle\u2019s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335\/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322\/1 (Aristotle\u2019s death).\r\n\r\nThe majority of those who have studied Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter\u2019s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle\u2019s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences.\r\n\r\nThere is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus\u2019 History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity.\r\n\r\nAlthough Eudemus\u2019 works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus\u2019 failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature.\r\n\r\nEratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius.\r\n\r\nThus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1427,"section_of":1214,"pages":"166-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The history of geometry"]}
Title | The interpretation of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Categories. Histories and Perspectives |
Pages | 35-48 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | D'Anna, Giuseppe , Fossati, Lorenzo |
Translator(s) |
The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle’s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle’s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus. The present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle’s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories’ aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories’ σκοπός, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise’s σκοπός was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says: “For the goal (σκοπός), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.”¹ However, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the σκοπός, they do not agree on the content of the Categories’ σκοπός. We will have a closer look at Simplicius’ presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists. There are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the σκοπός debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius’ presentation of the σκοπός debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework. Interestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as “highest genera,” “highest predicates,” or “common items.” I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts—participation, predication, and universality—which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1407,"authors_free":[{"id":2198,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2199,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":388,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":"D'Anna","norm_person":{"id":388,"first_name":"Giuseppe","last_name":"D'Anna","full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13968588X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2200,"entry_id":1407,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":389,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","free_first_name":"Lorenzo","free_last_name":"Fossati","norm_person":{"id":389,"first_name":"Lorenzo","last_name":"Fossati","full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"The present contribution deals with the exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic commentaries. While Plotinus discusses Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the course of his presentation of the Platonic metaphysical framework, later Neoplatonists, starting from Porphyry, comment on Aristotle\u2019s Categories as a whole. There are eight Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories that are still extant: the shorter of two commentaries by Porphyry, an equally short one by Dexippus, and the commentaries by Ammonius, Simplicius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, David (Elias), and Boethius. References and remarks in these commentaries suggest that there have been further Neoplatonic commentaries, such as a commentary by Iamblichus.\r\n\r\nThe present contribution focuses on two aspects of the Neoplatonic exegesis of Aristotle\u2019s Categories: 1) the question of the Categories\u2019 aim or purpose and 2) the understanding of the Aristotelian categories as predicates. In order to shed light on the first question, we will have a closer look at the Neoplatonic debate on the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, i.e., its aim or purpose. The determination of a treatise\u2019s \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 was conceived to be of utmost importance by Neoplatonists. Simplicius, for example, says:\r\n\r\n \u201cFor the goal (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2), once correctly identified, defines and rectifies our thought, so that we are not vainly transported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.\u201d\u00b9\r\n\r\nHowever, while many Neoplatonists agree on the importance of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2, they do not agree on the content of the Categories\u2019 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2. We will have a closer look at Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the different positions, as he deals with them individually and discusses them thoroughly. However, we will also compare it with the remarks by other Neoplatonists.\r\n\r\nThere are extensive and comprehensive scholarly articles that deal with the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate in Neoplatonic commentaries and especially with Simplicius\u2019 presentation of the \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2 debate (see especially Hoffmann 1987), so that the present contribution should rather be regarded as an overview of, or introduction to, the topic. The contribution, moreover, also aims at connecting the debate with the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Aristotelian categories. Many Neoplatonists conceived of the Aristotelian categories as being only applicable to the sensible realm, i.e., the lowest level within the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework.\r\n\r\nInterestingly, their presentation of the Aristotelian categories involves different descriptions such as \u201chighest genera,\u201d \u201chighest predicates,\u201d or \u201ccommon items.\u201d I will focus on the Neoplatonic description of the Aristotelian categories as predicates and the fact that, though Neoplatonists commonly designate the categories as predicates, they do not all refer to the same meaning. For all the descriptions entail different theoretical contexts\u2014participation, predication, and universality\u2014which, in turn, stem from complex doctrinal discussions of different philosophical schools. [introduction p. 35-36]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rAqaBbReFwMMBhs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":388,"full_name":"D'Anna, Giuseppe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":389,"full_name":"Fossati, Lorenzo","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1407,"section_of":1408,"pages":"35-48","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1408,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Categories. Histories and Perspectives","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2am9O0Ljwyc5hy1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1408,"pubplace":"Hildesheim, Zurich, New York","publisher":"Georg Olms Verlag","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Neoplatonic Commentary Tradition"]}
Title | The school of Alexander? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 83-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD. As a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which. We know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle’s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil’s record of his teacher’s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context—in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points. For the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study. With Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace—however controversially—his influence on later thinkers. But we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander’s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus’ school. It is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle. These writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on nature’; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai êthikai aporiai kai luseis—‘School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.’ A further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander’s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or ‘makeweight’ by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost. The circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled. It is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander’s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1027","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1027,"authors_free":[{"id":1551,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1552,"entry_id":1027,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The school of Alexander?","main_title":{"title":"The school of Alexander?"},"abstract":"Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed by the emperors as a public teacher of Aristotelian philosophy at some time between 198 and 209 AD.\r\nAs a public teacher, it is likely that he had, in some sense, a school. But trying to establish what happened in that school and how it functioned is comparable to the task we would face if we had to determine what went on in a philosophy department in a modern university based on a selection of books by the professor, a confused collection of his papers, the notes from which he lectured, and the essays of his students, with no obvious indication of which was which.\r\n\r\nWe know a considerable amount about the Neoplatonic schools of the fifth and sixth centuries AD and the study of Aristotle\u2019s writings in them. We know the place they had in the curriculum, the order in which they were read, and we can compare the ways in which different commentators approached the question of the relationship between the works of Aristotle and those of Plato. We can trace relations between teachers and their pupils, and we are sometimes told that a particular text is a pupil\u2019s record of his teacher\u2019s utterances. The very organization of the commentaries sometimes reflects and clarifies the requirements of the teaching context\u2014in the division of a commentary into separate lectures and the placing of a general summary of a section of argument before the discussion of particular points.\r\n\r\nFor the medieval period, too, we have copious information on the organization of teaching and study.\r\nWith Alexander, matters are very different. We know the names of some of his teachers, and his surviving works provide evidence for his disagreements with them. We also know something of his disagreements with other philosophers of his own generation or the generation before, and we can trace\u2014however controversially\u2014his influence on later thinkers.\r\n\r\nBut we do not know the name of a single one of his immediate pupils, and for all that we can tell, the influence of other writers on him might have been largely, and his influence on other writers entirely, through the medium of writing rather than personal encounter. After all, we are explicitly told that Alexander\u2019s commentaries were among those read in Plotinus\u2019 school.\r\n\r\nIt is, however, in principle unlikely that any thinker in the ancient world would have communicated entirely through the written, rather than the spoken, word. Some of the writings attributed to Alexander are most naturally seen in the context of his teaching activities or debates within his circle.\r\n\r\nThese writings include commentaries on Aristotelian works, treatises or monographs on particular topics such as those On the Soul and On Fate, and numerous short discussions. Three books of these collected discussions are entitled phusikai skholikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on nature\u2019; a fourth is titled Problems on Ethics but sub-titled, no doubt in imitation of the preceding three books when it was united with them, skholikai \u00eathikai aporiai kai luseis\u2014\u2018School-discussion problems and solutions on ethics.\u2019\r\n\r\nA further collection was transmitted as the second book of Alexander\u2019s treatise On the Soul and labeled mantissa or \u2018makeweight\u2019 by the Berlin editor Bruns. Other texts essentially similar to those in these collections survive in Arabic, though not in Greek, and there is evidence to suggest that there were other collections now lost.\r\n\r\nThe circumstances in which these collections were put together are unclear; it was not always expertly done, and while some of the titles attached to particular pieces seem to preserve valuable additional information, others are inept or unhelpful. Nor is it clear at what date the collections were assembled.\r\n\r\nIt is not my concern here to provide a full enumeration of the works attributed to Alexander or to classify them in detail. That has been done elsewhere by both myself and others. Rather, I will proceed to a discussion of what the works can tell us about the context in which they arose. It will be helpful to start with a consideration of the relation of Alexander\u2019s works to those of his predecessors, teachers, and contemporaries. [introduction p. 83-85]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wgzq8ffCF70YlYd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1027,"section_of":1453,"pages":"83-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The school of Alexander?"]}
Title | The use of Stoic references in Simplicius’ discussion of quality |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hauer, Mareike |
Editor(s) | Ulacco, Angela , Joosse, Albert |
Translator(s) |
The chapter deals with Simplicius’ references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle’s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius’ account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius’ criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1146","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1146,"authors_free":[{"id":1719,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":174,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hauer, Mareike","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Hauer","norm_person":{"id":174,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Hauer","full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1720,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":371,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ulacco, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Ulacco","norm_person":{"id":371,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Ulacco","full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156610575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1721,"entry_id":1146,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":372,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Joosse, Albert","free_first_name":"Albert","free_last_name":"Joosse","norm_person":{"id":372,"first_name":"Albert","last_name":"Joosse","full_name":"Joosse, Albert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality","main_title":{"title":"The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality"},"abstract":"The chapter deals with Simplicius\u2019 references to the Stoic conception of quality in his commentary on chapter eight of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. In particular, I will focus on the nature and possible purpose of these references. The first part of the chapter deals with the question about the origin of these references. The second and third part offer an analysis of different aspects of the Stoic conception of quality in comparison to Simplicius\u2019 account. I will show that Simplicius conceives of the Stoic notion of quality as an alternative yet comparable conception to the Aristotelian one presented in the Categories. Moreover, I will conclude that Simplicius\u2019 criticism of the Stoic doctrine serves as a means to show the explanatory superiority of the Aristotelian conception. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sLNvZJzhvBuIdic","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":371,"full_name":"Ulacco, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":372,"full_name":"Joosse, Albert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1146,"section_of":379,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":379,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Dealing with disagreement. The construction of traditions in later ancient philosophy ","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ulacco2023","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ancient philosophy is known for its organisation into distinct schools. But those schools were not locked into static dogmatism. As recent scholarship has shown, lively debate persisted between and within traditions. Yet the interplay between tradition and disagreement remains underexplored. This volume asks, first, how philosophers talked about differences of opinion within and between traditions and, second, how such debates affected the traditions involved. It covers the period from the first century BCE, which witnessed a turn to authoritative texts in different philosophical movements, through the rise of Christianity, to the golden age of Neoplatonic commentaries in the fifth and sixth centuries CE.\r\n\r\nBy studying various philosophical and Christian traditions alongside and in interaction with each other, this volume reveals common philosophical strategies of identification and differentiation. Ancient authors construct their own traditions in their (polemical) engagements with dissenters and opponents. Yet this very process of dissociation helped establish a common conceptual ground between traditions. This volume will be an important resource for specialists in late ancient philosophy, early Christianity, and the history of ideas. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mQL8DFZ9PPylGiK","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":379,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The use of Stoic references in Simplicius\u2019 discussion of quality"]}
Title | The writings of the De anima commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the "De Anima" |
Pages | 53-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Translator(s) |
So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was simply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own philosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen tally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries which, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in which doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest possible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta tors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming increasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo sophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The late Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the production of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a Christian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that light So we find at the end of Simplicius’ commentary on the De caelo what can only be described as a prayer: ‘Oh lord and artificer of the universe and the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being by you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the magnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so that thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make obeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect of all that is produced by you’ (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient philosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before these words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim plicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely ever to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary on the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under stand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, works whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the gods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"927","_score":null,"_source":{"id":927,"authors_free":[{"id":1371,"entry_id":927,"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}},{"id":2527,"entry_id":927,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"The writings of the De anima commentators","main_title":{"title":"The writings of the De anima commentators"},"abstract":"So far we have discussed the work of our commentators as if it was \r\nsimply scholarship and philosophical exposition, whether of their own \r\nphilosophy or that of Aristotle which most of them held to be fundamen\u00ad\r\ntally the same. There is, however, another aspect of the commentaries \r\nwhich, while not prominent, should not be forgotten. That is the way in \r\nwhich doing such work was an integral part of a life aimed at the greatest \r\npossible degree of return to that higher reality from which the commenta\u00ad\r\ntors saw human life as a decline and separation. It is becoming \r\nincreasingly better understood that for the great majority of Greek philo\u00ad\r\nsophers, philosophy was not only a way of thinking but a way of life.70 The \r\nlate Neoplatonists seem to have gone even further, and regarded the \r\nproduction of commentaries as a kind of service to the divine, much as a \r\nChristian monk who engaged in scholarship would have seen it in that \r\nlight So we find at the end of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the De caelo what \r\ncan only be described as a prayer: \u2018Oh lord and artificer of the universe \r\nand the simple bodies in it, to you and all that has been brought into being \r\nby you I offer this work as a hymn, being eager to see as a revelation the \r\nmagnitude of your works and to proclaim it to those who are worthy, so \r\nthat thinking no mean or mortal thoughts about you we may make \r\nobeisance to you in accordance with the high place you occupy in respect \r\nof all that is produced by you\u2019 (731.25-9). Those who think that ancient \r\nphilosophy ceased to be of interest some three and a half centuries before \r\nthese words were written and who may from time to time consult Sim\u00ad\r\nplicius for an opinion on the meaning of an Aristotelian text, are unlikely \r\never to see these words, or those that come at the end of the commentary \r\non the Enckeiridion (138.22-3). Without them they cannot fully under\u00ad\r\nstand the nature of works beyond whose surface they never penetrate, \r\nworks whose very composition could be seen as an act of reverence to the \r\ngods of paganism. [Conclusion, p. 71]","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OwPB7ahnasyI8P2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":927,"section_of":213,"pages":"53-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":213,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the \"De Anima\"","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Blumenthal1996a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1996","abstract":"Steven Strange: Emory University Scholars have traditionally used the Aristotelian commentators as sources for lost philosophical works and occasionally also as aids to understanding Aristotle. In H. J. Blumenthal's view, however, the commentators often assumed that there was a Platonist philosophy to which not only they but Aristotle himself subscribed. Their expository writing usually expressed their versions of Neoplatonist philosophy. Blumenthal here places the commentators in their intellectual and historical contexts, identifies their philosophical views, and demonstrates their tendency to read Aristotle as if he were a member of their philosophical circle.This book focuses on the commentators' exposition of Aristotle's treatise De anima (On the Soul), because it is relatively well documented and because the concept of soul was so important in all Neoplatonic systems. Blumenthal explains how the Neoplatonizing of Aristotle's thought, as well as the widespread use of the commentators' works, influenced the understanding of Aristotle in both the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian traditions.H. J. Blumenthal is the author or coeditor of six previous books and is currently preparing a two-volume translation, with introduction and commentary, of Simplicius' Commentary on \"De anima\" for publication in Cornell's series Ancient Commentators on Aristotle.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VOUUZIIp0rHNG0V","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":213,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The writings of the De anima commentators"]}
Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 163-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
Translator(s) |
I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"]}
Title | Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1990 |
Published in | Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence |
Pages | 113-123 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
[B]oth the content of Themistius’ works, and such evidence as we have of the commentators’ attitudes to him, show that he was predominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies of his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not invalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the last major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For him, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of those who know but he, and Socrates, ‘innanzi agli altri piu presso gli stanno’. [Conclusion, p. 123] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"875","_score":null,"_source":{"id":875,"authors_free":[{"id":1285,"entry_id":875,"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}},{"id":1286,"entry_id":875,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?","main_title":{"title":"Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"},"abstract":"[B]oth the content of Themistius\u2019 works, and such evidence as we \r\nhave of the commentators\u2019 attitudes to him, show that he was \r\npredominantly a Peripatetic. In this he stood out against the tendencies \r\nof his time. His frequently expressed admiration for Plato does not \r\ninvalidate this conclusion. Themistius may rightly claim to have been the \r\nlast major figure in antiquity who was a genuine follower of Aristotle. For \r\nhim, unlike his contemporaries, Plato does not surpass the master of \r\nthose who know but he, and Socrates, \u2018innanzi agli altri piu presso gli \r\nstanno\u2019. [Conclusion, p. 123]","btype":2,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/j4M1Faq3An8bJ7v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":875,"section_of":1453,"pages":"113-123","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1453,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1990","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This book brings together twenty articles giving a comprehensive view of the work of the Aristotelian commentators. First published in 1990, the collection is now brought up to date with a new introduction by Richard Sorabji. New generations of scholars will benefit from this reissuing of classic essays, including seminal works by major scholars, and the volume gives a comprehensive background to the work of the project on the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle, which has published over 100 volumes of translations since 1987 and has disseminated these crucial texts to scholars worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe importance of the commentators is partly that they represent the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools and partly that they provide a panorama of a thousand years of ancient Greek philosophy, revealing many original quotations from lost works. Even more significant is the profound influence - uncovered in some of the chapters of this book - that they exert on later philosophy, Islamic and Western. Not only did they preserve anti-Aristotelian material which helped inspire Medieval and Renaissance science, but they present Aristotle in a form that made him acceptable to the Christian church. It is not Aristotle, but Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators that so often lies behind the views of later thinkers. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M8lXuAdHpDW8tvu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1453,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"1","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?"]}
Title | Theophrastus on the Heavens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1985 |
Published in | Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule |
Pages | 577-593 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance—the ether—distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1028","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1028,"authors_free":[{"id":1553,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1554,"entry_id":1028,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus on the Heavens"},"abstract":"In this paper, I shall be discussing two topics: firstly, whether Theophrastus followed Aristotle in holding that the heavens were made of a substance\u2014the ether\u2014distinct from the four sublunary elements, or whether, as some have argued, he held that the heavens were made of fire; and secondly, the exact interpretation of certain technical terms of astronomy attributed to Theophrastus. I am throughout indebted to the work of my colleagues in Project Theophrastus, and especially to Professor William Fortenbaugh and Mrs. Pamela Huby. It was an interest in the Peripatetic tradition generally that led me to work on Theophrastus, and that interest has been both formed and stimulated by the works of Professor Paul Moraux; the theme of the present paper is one that he has himself discussed. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1985","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/V9G65AXaBlaZSt7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1028,"section_of":190,"pages":"577-593","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":190,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Aristoteles - Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet. Bd. 1: Aristoteles und seine Schule","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner\/Plezia\/Verdenius\/P\u00e9pin1985","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1985","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1985","abstract":"Der hier vorgelegte erste Band eines zweiteiligen Werkes, das \r\nAristoteles und dem Aristotelismus gewidmet ist, enth\u00e4lt 31 Origi-\r\nnalbeitr\u00e4ge zum Corpus Aristotelicum und zum alten Peripatos. \r\nKommentierung, Uberlieferung und Nachleben des Aristoteles bil-\r\nden das Thema des zweiten Bandes, der so bald als m\u00f6glich folgen \r\nwird. [Vorwort]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fo2YolqZedXU2Im","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":190,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus on the Heavens"]}
Title | Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1998 |
Published in | Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources |
Pages | 67-80 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Schenkeveld, Dirk M. |
Editor(s) | Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. |
Translator(s) |
In the list of Theophrastus’ works on rhetoric and poetics as given in the new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, some of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles come from the list of Theophrastus’ works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- 50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and on the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. The responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles of works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea tises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the fact that Diogenes’ list does not give any indication of the type of work to which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their own arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, and especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents of 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac cording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, even by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too much, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1038","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1038,"authors_free":[{"id":1573,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":397,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","free_first_name":"Dirk M.","free_last_name":"Schenkeveld","norm_person":{"id":397,"first_name":"Dirk M.","last_name":"Schenkeveld","full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119331691","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1574,"entry_id":1038,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":87,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Ophuijsen, Johannes M.","free_first_name":"Johannes M.","free_last_name":"Van Ophuijsen","norm_person":{"id":87,"first_name":"Johannes M. ","last_name":"van Ophuijsen","full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/120962365","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"},"abstract":"In the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works on rhetoric and poetics as given in \r\nthe new collection under 666 FHS&G one finds twenty-four items, \r\nsome of them (2 and 17) subdivided into (a) and (b). Most of these titles \r\ncome from the list of Theophrastus\u2019 works in Diogenes Laertius 5.42- \r\n50. In all but five cases (2, 6,17, 22 and 23, the last two on comedy and \r\non the ludicrous respectively), Diogenes is our only source for them. \r\nThe responsible editor, W. W. Fortenbaugh, also refers to several titles \r\nof works which other scholars had placed in the group of rhetorical trea\u00ad\r\ntises, but his classification is different. This variation is explained by the \r\nfact that Diogenes\u2019 list does not give any indication of the type of work \r\nto which any title belongs, which leaves scholars free to devise their \r\nown arrangement.In what follows I will discuss the place or the wording of a few titles, \r\nand especially that of 17b, thereby focusing on the nature and contents \r\nof 683 FHS&G. The editors have declined to arrange the fragments ac\u00ad\r\ncording to known works (cp. vol. I, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, I will argue, \r\neven by their arrangement of the titles they sometimes suggest too \r\nmuch, or too little. [Introduction, p. 67]","btype":2,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kt2zxAT8hYImXQS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":397,"full_name":"Schenkeveld, Dirk M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":87,"full_name":"van Ophuijsen, Johannes M. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1038,"section_of":1298,"pages":"67-80","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1298,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Ophuijsen_Raalte1997","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Theophrastus was Aristotle's pupil and second head of the Peripatetic School. Apart from two botanical works, a collection of character sketches, and several scientific opuscula, his works survive only through quotations and reports in secondary sources. Recently these quotations and reports have been collected and published, thereby making the thought of Theophrastus accessible to a wide audience. The present volume contains seventeen responses to this material.\r\n\r\nThere are chapters dealing with Theophrastus' views on logic, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and music, as well as the life of Theophrastus. Together these writings throw considerable light on fundamental questions concerning the development and importance of the Peripatos in the early Hellenistic period. The authors consider whether Theophrastus was a systematic thinker who imposed coherence and consistency on a growing body of knowledge, or a problem-oriented thinker who foreshadowed the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various loosely connected disciplines. Of special interest are those essays which deal with Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the lively philosophic scene occupied by such contemporaries as Zeno, the founder of the Stoa, and Epicurus, the founder of the Garden, as well as Xenocrates and Polemon hi the Academy, and Theophrastus' fellow Peripatetics, Eudemus and Strato.\r\n\r\nThe contributors to the volume are Suzanne Amigues, Antonio Battegazzore, Tiziano Dorandi, Woldemar Gorier, John Glucker, Hans Gottschalk, Frans de Haas, Andre Laks, Anthony Long, Jorgen Mejer, Mario Mignucci, Trevor Saunders, Dirk Schenkeveld, David Sedley, Robert Sharpies, C. M. J. Sicking and Richard Sorabji. The Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities series is a forum for seminal thinking in the field of philosophy, and this volume is no exception. Theophrastus is a landmark achievement in intellectual thought. Philosophers, historians, and classicists will all find this work to be enlightening. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1SV1t3Xkh1BCyWm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1298,"pubplace":"New Brunswick & London","publisher":"Transaction Publishers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"8","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More"]}
Title | Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
Pages | 75-90 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
Translator(s) |
Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty. Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"929","_score":null,"_source":{"id":929,"authors_free":[{"id":1373,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1374,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1832,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"},"abstract":"Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere\u2014whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle\u2019s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings\u2014and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus\u2019 assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":929,"section_of":31,"pages":"75-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":31,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"]}
Title | Time and the intellect. Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius’ reply. |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Platon und die Zeit |
Pages | 181-201 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Jan Opsomer |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time. Despite this "official" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner. The sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus’ durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought. The least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus’ various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or "transitional" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1604","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1604,"authors_free":[{"id":2809,"entry_id":1604,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jan Opsomer","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply.","main_title":{"title":"Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply."},"abstract":"The Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum agree to a large extent regarding the relation between intellect and time: human, angelic, and other non-divine intellects grasp their objects instantaneously, yet think transitionally. Divine intellects, on the contrary, while grasping their objects instantaneously, do not think transitionally. All intellects are unrelated to time because only agents that are engaged in physical change act in time.\r\n\r\nDespite this \"official\" view, the Contra Aristotelem contains passages suggesting that God also thinks sequentially and hence is able to think time as an A-series. This would still not mean, according to Philoponus, that God thinks in time because the sequence in question is not physical. Simplicius does not accept this excuse and does not want to restrict the concept of time in this manner.\r\n\r\nThe sequence in God's thought fits well with Philoponus\u2019 durational or quasi-temporal conception of eternity. At any rate, whatever one is prepared to call the sequential thinking in which God apparently engages, it is hard to deny that it is in some sense transitional. In order to remain consistent, therefore, Philoponus would also need to concede that the durational eternity in which God lives is not devoid of every type of change. He is not likely to be prepared to make that concession, given his repeated denials of divine transitional thought.\r\n\r\nThe least one can say is that, in the Contra Aristotelem, there is a tension in Philoponus\u2019 various pronouncements on the divine intellect. Presumably, Philoponus would have restricted this type of sequential or \"transitional\" divine thought to cases where God is thinking about events that are situated in time (more precisely, in limited time spans, as sempiternal, unchanging objects of thought would not pose a problem). If this is the case, God would still intelligize all eternal, intelligible realities at once. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1604,"section_of":1603,"pages":"181-201","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1603,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Platon und die Zeit","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Corcilius_M\u00e4nnlein_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der Band \"Platon und die Zeit\" umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen und gro\u00dfen Thema bei Platon: Vor allem im Dialog 'Timaios', aber auch in weiteren philosophischen Dialogen Platons geht es um die Frage der Natur und des Wesens von Zeit und darum, wie und ob sie entstanden ist. So werden in diesem Band ganz unterschiedliche philosophische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische und ethische Themen zu Platons Zeit-Konzept in den Fokus genommen. Behandelt werden \u00fcberdies viele Stufen der philosophischen Rezeption und der (kritischen) Auseinandersetzung mit Platons Vorstellungen \u00fcber 'Zeit', die etwa \u00fcber Philon von Alexandria, Plutarch, Numenios, Origenes, Plotin und Augustinus bis hin zu sp\u00e4teren Neuplatonikern wie Proklos in die Sp\u00e4tantike reichen. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7flRcLpgLyfKJlQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1603,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"T\u00fcbinger Platon Tage ","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Time and the intellect. Philoponus\u2019 polemic against Aristotle, and Simplicius\u2019 reply."]}
Title | Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 1987 |
Published in | Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985 |
Pages | 289-325 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Bossier, Fernand |
Editor(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
Translator(s) |
Si l’on essaie d’évaluer l’influence exercée par un auteur grec sur l’Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l’on doit se tourner tout d’abord vers l’étude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait été plus élevé qu’on ne le croit d’ordinaire, la traduction n’en était pas moins, à cette époque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les idées des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les écoles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L’intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d’une part, elle fera l’historique des traductions qui en ont été faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d’autre part, elle présentera les résultats d’une première reconnaissance d’un terrain très vaste et à peine défriché, à savoir celui de l’influence qu’ont eue ces traductions sur les traités médiévaux. [introduction p. 289] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"568","_score":null,"_source":{"id":568,"authors_free":[{"id":806,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":12,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bossier, Fernand","free_first_name":"Fernand","free_last_name":"Bossier","norm_person":{"id":12,"first_name":"Fernand ","last_name":"Bossier","full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1017981663","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":807,"entry_id":568,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)","main_title":{"title":"Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on essaie d\u2019\u00e9valuer l\u2019influence exerc\u00e9e par un auteur grec sur l\u2019Occident au XIIIe et XIVe s., l\u2019on doit se tourner tout d\u2019abord vers l\u2019\u00e9tude des traductions. En effet, bien que le nombre de ceux qui connaissaient le grec ait \u00e9t\u00e9 plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 qu\u2019on ne le croit d\u2019ordinaire, la traduction n\u2019en \u00e9tait pas moins, \u00e0 cette \u00e9poque et pour longtemps encore, le seul canal par lequel les id\u00e9es des philosophes et savants grecs pouvaient atteindre les \u00e9coles ; le cas des dialogues de Platon est trop connu pour que nous nous y attardions longtemps. L\u2019intention de notre communication, qui concerne la survie du commentaire In De caelo en Occident, sera donc double : d\u2019une part, elle fera l\u2019historique des traductions qui en ont \u00e9t\u00e9 faites tout au long du XIIIe s. ; d\u2019autre part, elle pr\u00e9sentera les r\u00e9sultats d\u2019une premi\u00e8re reconnaissance d\u2019un terrain tr\u00e8s vaste et \u00e0 peine d\u00e9frich\u00e9, \u00e0 savoir celui de l\u2019influence qu\u2019ont eue ces traductions sur les trait\u00e9s m\u00e9di\u00e9vaux. [introduction p. 289]","btype":2,"date":"1987","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aFzlEmFULfnA7eU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":12,"full_name":"Bossier, Fernand ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":568,"section_of":171,"pages":"289-325","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":171,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Simplicius. Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa survie: Actes du colloque international de Paris 28 sept. - 1er oct. 1985","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Hadot1987","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1987","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1987","abstract":"Depuis une quinzaine d'ann\u00e9es, on assiste en Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Am\u00e9rique et en France \u00e0 un renouveau des \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius. Diff\u00e9rents chercheurs, partis de probl\u00e9matiques et de pr\u00e9occupations diff\u00e9rentes, se sont rencontr\u00e9s dans ce domaine de recherche d'une importance capitale pour l'histoire de toute la philosophie antique. C'\u00e9tait donc pour faciliter une \u00e9tude coordonn\u00e9e et syst\u00e9matique \u00e0 la fois du texte et de la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius que la Recherche Coop\u00e9rative Programm\u00e9e 739 \"Recherches sur les \u0153uvres et la pens\u00e9e de Simplicius\" fut fond\u00e9e en 1982 dans le cadre du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (C.N.R.S., Paris). Depuis cette date, ses recherches se d\u00e9roulent en \u00e9troite collaboration avec l'\u00e9quipe anglo-am\u00e9ricaine de recherche du professeur Richard Sorabji, intitul\u00e9e \"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle\", et avec l'Aristoteles-Archiv de la Freie Universit\u00e4t de Berlin-Ouest dirig\u00e9 par le professeur Dieter Harlfinger.\r\n\r\nPour permettre aux diff\u00e9rents membres de la R.C.P., dont plusieurs habitent \u00e0 l'\u00e9tranger, ainsi qu'\u00e0 d'autres savants int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par les \u00e9tudes sur Simplicius, d'entrer en contact personnel, de r\u00e9soudre oralement des questions diverses se rapportant \u00e0 l'organisation du travail, d'\u00e9changer entre eux les tout derniers r\u00e9sultats de leurs recherches et d'engager une discussion sur des probl\u00e8mes difficiles, j'ai organis\u00e9, dans le cadre de la R.C.P. 739, un colloque international qui s'est tenu \u00e0 Paris, \u00e0 la Fondation Hugot, du 28 septembre au 1er octobre 1985. Ce colloque a \u00e9t\u00e9 enti\u00e8rement financ\u00e9 par la Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France, \u00e0 laquelle j'exprime toute ma gratitude. Je tiens aussi \u00e0 remercier M. et Mme de Morant pour la sollicitude et la bienveillance avec laquelle ils ont accueilli les membres du colloque et veill\u00e9 \u00e0 leur procurer un merveilleux confort.\r\n\r\nLe Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique a subventionn\u00e9 la parution des Actes du Colloque, et je remercie le professeur Dr. H. Wenzel d'avoir rendu possible leur parution dans la s\u00e9rie prestigieuse des Peripatoi de la maison d'\u00e9dition De Gruyter. [Pr\u00e9face]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/45BIqsODQJTdHmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":171,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Peripatoi. Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Traductions latines et influences du commentaire in De caelo en occident (XlIIe- XIVe s.)"]}
Title | Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad |
Pages | 137-150 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Watts, Edward Jay |
Editor(s) | Lössl, Josef , Watt, John W. |
Translator(s) |
This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by briefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators active in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus’ commentary on Plato’s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this productive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the informal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient classroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary from actual classroom experience. Simplicius’ programme shows how an author could adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour that neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of interpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will touch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary transmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some facets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his ideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine the puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an Aristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will build upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience studying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom setting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate the foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions rest. [introduction p. 140] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"440","_score":null,"_source":{"id":440,"authors_free":[{"id":590,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":357,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","free_first_name":"Edward Jay","free_last_name":"Watts","norm_person":{"id":357,"first_name":"Edward Jay","last_name":"Watts","full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131826530","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":591,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":359,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","free_first_name":"Josef","free_last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","norm_person":{"id":359,"first_name":"Josef","last_name":"L\u00f6ssl","full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1030028400","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":592,"entry_id":440,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":358,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Watt, John W.","free_first_name":"John W.","free_last_name":"Watt","norm_person":{"id":358,"first_name":"John W.","last_name":"Watt","full_name":"Watt, John W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131435531","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition","main_title":{"title":"Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition"},"abstract":"This paper explores the idea of translating the scholastic social experience by \r\nbriefly considering the projects undertaken by four very different commentators \r\nactive in the 520s and 530s. It begins by looking at Olympiodorus\u2019 commentary \r\non Plato\u2019s Gorgias, one of the earliest and least polished works written by this \r\nproductive and long-lived scholar. This commentary at times tends towards the \r\ninformal and, because of this, it opens a window into the dynamics of an ancient \r\nclassroom. Next, the argument turns to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s \r\nPhysics, a work that attempts to divorce completely the writing of a commentary \r\nfrom actual classroom experience. Simplicius\u2019 programme shows how an author \r\ncould adapt the commentary genre so that it served as a purely literate endeavour \r\nthat neither reflected lessons once given in a classroom nor suggested a line of \r\ninterpretation that could be directly followed in teaching. Finally, the paper will \r\ntouch upon the very different translation projects undertaken by two contemporary \r\ntransmitters of the Greek commentary tradition. It will initially consider how some \r\nfacets of the project undertaken by Boethius suggest that he anticipates that his \r\nideas will not be interpreted in a traditional classroom setting. It will then examine \r\nthe puzzling decision of Sergius of Reshaina to write a Syriac commentary of an \r\nAristotelian work for which no Syriac translation existed. This discussion will \r\nbuild upon earlier scholarship to show that Sergius probably had direct experience \r\nstudying philosophy in classrooms and expected his work to be used in a classroom \r\nsetting. These observations should allow us to better contextualize and appreciate \r\nthe foundations upon which the medieval Syriac and Latin commentary traditions \r\nrest. [introduction p. 140]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tWH1ZboTbhA72ad","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":359,"full_name":"L\u00f6ssl, Josef","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":358,"full_name":"Watt, John W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":440,"section_of":271,"pages":"137-150","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":271,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"L\u00f6ssl2011b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This book brings together sixteen studies by internationally renowned scholars on the origins and early development of the Latin and Syriac biblical and philosophical commentary traditions. It casts light on the work of the founder of philosophical biblical commentary, Origen of Alexandria, and traces the developments of fourth- and fifth-century Latin commentary techniques in writers such as Marius Victorinus, Jerome and Boethius. The focus then moves east, to the beginnings of Syriac philosophical commentary and its relationship to theology in the works of Sergius of Reshaina, Probus and Paul the Persian, and the influence of this continuing tradition in the East up to the Arabic writings of al-Farabi. There are also chapters on the practice of teaching Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy in fifth-century Alexandria, on contemporaneous developments among Byzantine thinkers, and on the connections in Latin and Syriac traditions between translation (from Greek) and commentary. With its enormous breadth and the groundbreaking originality of its contributions, this volume is an indispensable resource not only for specialists, but also for all students and scholars interested in late-antique intellectual history, especially the practice of teaching and studying philosophy, the philosophical exegesis of the Bible, and the role of commentary in the post-Hellenistic world as far as the classical renaissance in Islam.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kR9UCCsaG87xlqQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":271,"pubplace":"Surrey \u2013 Burlington","publisher":"Ashgate","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Translating the Personal Aspect of Late Platonism in the Commentary Tradition"]}
Title | Un grief antichrétien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en théologie |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Les chrétiens et l’hellénisme: identités religieuses et culture grecque dans l’Antiquité tardive |
Pages | 161-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Perrot, Arnaud |
Translator(s) |
Concluons brièvement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d’étudier montre que Proclus n’appréhendait la réalité de son temps, et les chrétiens qui l’entouraient, qu’avec des schèmes de pensée directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseignée par lui-même et par les philosophes de son école. La théorie de l’âme qui lui permet de comprendre l’état d’«ignorance» dans lequel se trouvent les chrétiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la République de Platon. La doctrine de l’oubli (lêthê) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les âmes ignorantes des chrétiens, incarnées et individuelles, dans l’horizon indépassable qui est le leur – le monde de la génésis. La théorie proclienne de la causalité, qui lie la puissance de la Cause à l’extension de ses effets, renforce l’explication par «l’oubli». Et le monothéisme rudimentaire des chrétiens prend son sens par rapport à (et en décalage avec) l’architecture majestueuse de la Théologie platonicienne, qui déploie les ordres divins à partir de l’Un-Bien. Ce monothéisme est comme un lambeau appauvri d’une science théologique à laquelle les chrétiens sont étrangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l’expérience ultime de la vision unitive. Cette perception de la réalité peut sans doute être mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas à provoquer les chrétiens en dépit des difficultés, ainsi que l’a justement suggéré H. D. Saffrey. Au début du VIe siècle, les choses changent, la situation des païens s’assombrit encore – en dépit, ou à cause, de la restauration de l’école néoplatonicienne d’Athènes et de l’enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius – et le ton se durcit : le panorama des âges de l’Humanité, dans la Vie d’Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enquête, laisse éclater une indignation véhémente contre l’Empire chrétien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L’on sait ce que fut l’édit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses conséquences. Mais s’il est une chose qui n’a pas varié, c’est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers néoplatoniciens avaient d’être les détenteurs de l’authentique science théologique. Étaient-ils complètement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l’ampleur quantitative, de la littérature chrétienne des premiers siècles ? Peut-on penser qu’ils ignoraient vraiment les œuvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n’entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1143","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1143,"authors_free":[{"id":1716,"entry_id":1143,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2048,"entry_id":1143,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":212,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","free_first_name":"Arnaud","free_last_name":"Perrot","norm_person":{"id":212,"first_name":"Arnaud","last_name":"Perrot","full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135696276","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie","main_title":{"title":"Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie"},"abstract":"Concluons bri\u00e8vement. Le dossier de textes que nous venons d\u2019\u00e9tudier montre que Proclus n\u2019appr\u00e9hendait la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de son temps, et les chr\u00e9tiens qui l\u2019entouraient, qu\u2019avec des sch\u00e8mes de pens\u00e9e directement issus de la science philosophique platonicienne construite et enseign\u00e9e par lui-m\u00eame et par les philosophes de son \u00e9cole. La th\u00e9orie de l\u2019\u00e2me qui lui permet de comprendre l\u2019\u00e9tat d\u2019\u00abignorance\u00bb dans lequel se trouvent les chr\u00e9tiens est directement issue du Livre IV de la R\u00e9publique de Platon. La doctrine de l\u2019oubli (l\u00eath\u00ea) est elle aussi platonicienne et permet de situer les \u00e2mes ignorantes des chr\u00e9tiens, incarn\u00e9es et individuelles, dans l\u2019horizon ind\u00e9passable qui est le leur \u2013 le monde de la g\u00e9n\u00e9sis. La th\u00e9orie proclienne de la causalit\u00e9, qui lie la puissance de la Cause \u00e0 l\u2019extension de ses effets, renforce l\u2019explication par \u00abl\u2019oubli\u00bb. Et le monoth\u00e9isme rudimentaire des chr\u00e9tiens prend son sens par rapport \u00e0 (et en d\u00e9calage avec) l\u2019architecture majestueuse de la Th\u00e9ologie platonicienne, qui d\u00e9ploie les ordres divins \u00e0 partir de l\u2019Un-Bien. Ce monoth\u00e9isme est comme un lambeau appauvri d\u2019une science th\u00e9ologique \u00e0 laquelle les chr\u00e9tiens sont \u00e9trangers, tout comme leur est inaccessible l\u2019exp\u00e9rience ultime de la vision unitive.\r\n\r\nCette perception de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 peut sans doute \u00eatre mise en relation avec une attitude politique prudente de Proclus, qui ne cherchait pas \u00e0 provoquer les chr\u00e9tiens en d\u00e9pit des difficult\u00e9s, ainsi que l\u2019a justement sugg\u00e9r\u00e9 H. D. Saffrey. Au d\u00e9but du VIe si\u00e8cle, les choses changent, la situation des pa\u00efens s\u2019assombrit encore \u2013 en d\u00e9pit, ou \u00e0 cause, de la restauration de l\u2019\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes et de l\u2019enseignement philosophique sous la direction de Damascius \u2013 et le ton se durcit : le panorama des \u00e2ges de l\u2019Humanit\u00e9, dans la Vie d\u2019Isidore de Damascius, qui ouvrait cette enqu\u00eate, laisse \u00e9clater une indignation v\u00e9h\u00e9mente contre l\u2019Empire chr\u00e9tien, qui se retrouve ensuite chez Simplicius. L\u2019on sait ce que fut l\u2019\u00e9dit de Justinien en 529, et quelles furent ses cons\u00e9quences.\r\n\r\nMais s\u2019il est une chose qui n\u2019a pas vari\u00e9, c\u2019est probablement la conscience hautaine que les derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens avaient d\u2019\u00eatre les d\u00e9tenteurs de l\u2019authentique science th\u00e9ologique. \u00c9taient-ils compl\u00e8tement inconscients de la grandeur doctrinale et spirituelle, et de l\u2019ampleur quantitative, de la litt\u00e9rature chr\u00e9tienne des premiers si\u00e8cles ? Peut-on penser qu\u2019ils ignoraient vraiment les \u0153uvres de leurs adversaires ? Nous n\u2019entendons que leur silence... [conclusion p. 196-197]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/C6ajOBbEqvD83jH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":212,"full_name":"Perrot, Arnaud","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1143,"section_of":358,"pages":"161-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":358,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les chr\u00e9tiens et l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme: identit\u00e9s religieuses et culture grecque dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Perrot2012","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2012","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"Les modernes ont souvent oppos\u00e9 les chr\u00e9tiens \u00e0 l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme. Les auteurs antiques eux-m\u00eames \u2013 qu\u2019ils soient \u00ab Grecs \u00bb ou chr\u00e9tiens \u2013 semblent avoir th\u00e9matis\u00e9 leur antagonisme. Que vaut cette ligne de fracture ? Qu\u2019est-ce qu\u2019\u00eatre Grec \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 ? Pour quelles raisons un chr\u00e9tien hell\u00e9nophone, pass\u00e9 par les \u00e9coles de l\u2019Empire et nourri de paideia, ne saurait-il \u00eatre un Grec, au m\u00eame titre que les autres ? Qui donne, qui revendique et qui refuse ce titre \u2013 et pourquoi ? Les termes dans lesquels le sujet est pos\u00e9 ne sont ni simples, ni neutres. La notion d\u2019hell\u00e9nisme, qui peut para\u00eetre moins confessionnelle que celle de \u00ab paganisme \u00bb, est en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 marqu\u00e9e par les conflits religieux des \u00e9poques hell\u00e9nistique et tardive. Ce sont, on le montrera, les besoins de l\u2019autod\u00e9finition et l\u2019\u00e9laboration de la pol\u00e9mique contre l\u2019Autre qui conditionnent les rapports entre les chr\u00e9tiens et \u00ab l\u2019hell\u00e9nisme \u00bb. Cet ouvrage porte une attention particuli\u00e8re au but poursuivi par les auteurs anciens dans chacune de leurs d\u00e9clarations identitaires, entre langue commune et particularisme religieux. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9Fs2iPPdApqIvv7","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":358,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Rue d'Ulm","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"20","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Un grief antichr\u00e9tien chez Proclus: l'ignorance en th\u00e9ologie"]}
Title | Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | ΚΑΛΛΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΕΤΗ. Bellezza e virtù. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti |
Pages | 537-549 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
Editor(s) | Cardullo, R. Loredana , Iozzia, Daniele |
Translator(s) |
L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine è duplice: da un lato, cercherò di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione è considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall’altro lato, mi adopererò per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio. Preciso subito che non ricercherò di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrerò piuttosto sull’interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica. La critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 è nota per la sua problematicità, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato è che indagare se l’essere è uno e immobile non è indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo è se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico. In particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche più recenti, cioè quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe—ed è così interpretata dalla quasi totalità dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica—che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Così, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura. Lungi dall’essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura. Quest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, è stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averroè sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si può mostrare la falsità a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l’esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non è considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione è precisamente di competenza del geometra. Di qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un’analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato—i quali assumono che l’essere è uno e immobile—e Antifonte dall’altro lato—il quale cercò di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l’iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari—procedura che per Aristotele non è accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra. Sia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero sì indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova già in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perché Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perché alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalità della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura. [introduction p. 537-539] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1162","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1162,"authors_free":[{"id":1740,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":246,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":{"id":246,"first_name":"Ivan Adriano","last_name":"Licciardi","full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2076,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":24,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana","free_first_name":"R. Loredana","free_last_name":"Cardullo","norm_person":{"id":24,"first_name":"R. Loredana ","last_name":"Cardullo","full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139800220","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2077,"entry_id":1162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":247,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Iozzia, Daniele","free_first_name":"Daniele ","free_last_name":"Iozzia","norm_person":{"id":247,"first_name":"Daniele ","last_name":"Iozzia","full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1036757870","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19","main_title":{"title":"Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19"},"abstract":"L'obiettivo che mi propongo di raggiungere in questa mia indagine \u00e8 duplice: da un lato, cercher\u00f2 di comprendere il posizionamento di Simplicio in merito a una delicata questione ermeneutica, sollevata da due linee interpretative differenti. L'esegesi del passo aristotelico in questione \u00e8 considerata da alcuni come filosoficamente indegna della natura oppure no; dall\u2019altro lato, mi adoperer\u00f2 per mettere in luce un aspetto del metodo con cui Simplicio affronta l'interpretazione di Aristotele, ponendo particolare attenzione alla terminologia e al fine della quale egli si confronta con altri esegeti aristotelici, in particolare con Alessandro di Afrodisia e con Porfirio.\r\nPreciso subito che non ricercher\u00f2 di risolvere la questione concernente il senso aristotelico, al quale intendo dedicare uno studio a parte, ma mi concentrer\u00f2 piuttosto sull\u2019interpretazione di Simplicio, il quale ricorre frequentemente a questione ermeneutiche al fine di ricostruire il senso genuino del testo di Aristotele. Mi limito dunque a presentare molto brevemente il problema inerente al testo della Fisica.\r\nLa critica che Aristotele muove agli Eleati in Fisica I, 2 \u00e8 nota per la sua problematicit\u00e0, che riguarda non soltanto le argomentazioni che vengono addotte contro Parmenide e Melisso, ma anche lo statuto complessivo della critica stessa (Phys. I, 2, 184b25-185a14). Aristoteles affermato \u00e8 che indagare se l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile non \u00e8 indegno della natura, e che, comunque, non lo \u00e8 se presupposto dalla fisica aristotelica, che studia enti molteplici e numerosi soggetti al divenire. In questo contesto, la formulazione testuale assume un'importanza fondamentale per la corretta comprensione del pensiero aristotelico.\r\nIn particolare, la frase trasmessa nelle edizioni critiche pi\u00f9 recenti, cio\u00e8 quelle di Ross e di Carteron, con la punteggiatura che ho sopra riportato, significherebbe\u2014ed \u00e8 cos\u00ec interpretata dalla quasi totalit\u00e0 dei traduttori moderni della Fisica aristotelica\u2014che gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che riguardano la natura e, dunque, la sua scienza. Tuttavia, ci sono interpreti che intendono questa stessa frase in modo diverso, spostando la virgola che nelle edizioni di Ross e di Carteron si legge dopo il secondo ou, prima di questa negazione. Cos\u00ec, il testo risulterebbe nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura e tuttavia avrebbero sollevato problemi che non riguardano la natura.\r\nLungi dall\u2019essere un problema ozioso, la diversa lettura della punteggiatura solleva un dubbio teorico di grande importanza. Ponendo la virgola prima o dopo la negazione ou, infatti, il senso del passo aristotelico risulta ribaltato: secondo la prima lettura, Parmenide e Melisso non sarebbero, secondo Aristotele, dei fisici; mentre secondo la seconda lettura, essi, al contrario, sarebbero filosofi che hanno indagato a pieno titolo sulla natura.\r\nQuest'ultimo modo di intendere il passo aristotelico, contrario a quello comunemente adottato, \u00e8 stato assunto in passato da diversi interpreti. Tra questi, sia Averro\u00e8 sia Tommaso d'Aquino hanno inteso che gli Eleati abbiano indagato sulla natura; tra i moderni, Augustin Mansion e Pierre Pellegrin. Mansion, per giustificare la sua interpretazione, si richiama prevalentemente alle traduzioni arabe, da cui derivano le versioni latine di Gerardo da Cremona e di Michele Scoto. Pellegrin, invece, si sofferma sull'affermazione di Aristotele secondo la quale il filosofo ritiene opportuno risolvere non tutte le aporie, ma solo quelle di cui si pu\u00f2 mostrare la falsit\u00e0 a partire dai principi (Phys. I, 2, 185a14-16). Egli analizza l\u2019esempio della quadratura del cerchio, la cui soluzione da parte di Antifonte non \u00e8 considerata da Aristotele come una questione che debba essere affrontata dal geometra, al contrario della procedura per mezzo delle sezioni, la cui risoluzione \u00e8 precisamente di competenza del geometra.\r\nDi qui, Pellegrin stabilisce un\u2019analogia tra Parmenide e Melisso da un lato\u2014i quali assumono che l\u2019essere \u00e8 uno e immobile\u2014e Antifonte dall\u2019altro lato\u2014il quale cerc\u00f2 di risolvere il problema della quadratura del cerchio mediante l\u2019iscrizione nel cerchio di poligoni regolari\u2014procedura che per Aristotele non \u00e8 accettabile dal punto di vista del geometra.\r\nSia Mansion che Pellegrin riconoscono che la lettura secondo la quale Parmenide e Melisso avrebbero s\u00ec indagato sulla natura, ma avrebbero sollevato aporie che non riguardano la natura, si trova gi\u00e0 in Porfirio e in Alessandro, come si desume dal testo di Simplicio. Nessuno dei due studiosi, tuttavia, ha presentato in dettaglio la discussione di Simplicio, che presenta diversi tratti interessanti e che vale la pena interpretare correttamente. Non solo perch\u00e9 Alessandro, tra le due interpretazioni possibili, sceglie quella secondo cui, per Aristotele, gli Eleati non avrebbero indagato sulla natura, ma anche perch\u00e9 alla fine del suo commento Simplicio stesso sembra sfumare la radicalit\u00e0 della sua critica ad Alessandro e, quindi, anche della sua propensione a interpretare nel senso che gli Eleati avrebbero indagato sulla natura.\r\n[introduction p. 537-539]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U8p9nMTxWVQUE6R","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":246,"full_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":24,"full_name":"Cardullo, R. Loredana ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":247,"full_name":"Iozzia, Daniele ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1162,"section_of":323,"pages":"537-549","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":323,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"it","title":"\u039a\u0391\u039b\u039b\u039f\u03a3 \u039a\u0391\u0399 \u0391\u03a1\u0395\u03a4\u0397. Bellezza e virt\u00f9. Studi in onore die Maria Barbanti","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Cardullo2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iYDFyV0tpKo9lmt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":323,"pubplace":"Acireale - Rom","publisher":"Bonanno","series":"Analecta humanitatis. Collana del Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione dell'Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Catania diretta da Santo Di Nuovo","volume":"29","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Una polemica filologica di Simplicio contro Alessandro di Afrodisia su Aristotele, Phy. 1.2, 185A17-19"]}
Title | Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I 8] 6, 33-34 : Le « De Iside et Osiride » (369 A-E) de Plutarque |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2009 |
Published in | Gnose et Philosophie. Études en hommage à Pierre Hadot |
Pages | 87-95 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc |
Editor(s) | Narbonne, Jean-Marc , Poirier, Paul-Hubert |
Translator(s) |
Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1105","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1105,"authors_free":[{"id":1668,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1669,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":275,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","free_first_name":"Jean-Marc","free_last_name":"Narbonne","norm_person":{"id":275,"first_name":"Jean-Marc","last_name":"Narbonne","full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/124470408","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1670,"entry_id":1105,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":276,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","free_first_name":"Paul-Hubert","free_last_name":"Poirier","norm_person":{"id":276,"first_name":"Paul-Hubert","last_name":"Poirier","full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/103382867X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque","main_title":{"title":"Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque"},"abstract":"Despite numerous studies conducted for a long time on Plotinus' treatise 51, the formula expressing the radical opposition of good and evil remains partly a mystery. Plotinus argues against Aristotle's idea that substances do not have opposites, and claims that universal substance can have a contrary, namely non-substance and the nature of evil. Plotinus' dualism allows for organized counterattacks while preserving the supremacy of good, with evil existing as an enclave within being, limited by the boundaries of good. The image of a prisoner acting but limited by the chains that surround him from the outside is used to illustrate this idea. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O9OqImqHCPz7w7D","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":275,"full_name":"Narbonne, Jean-Marc","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":276,"full_name":"Poirier, Paul-Hubert","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1105,"section_of":301,"pages":"87-95","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":301,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Gnose et Philosophie. \u00c9tudes en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Narbonne2009c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"Un livre d\u2019historiens et de philosophes sp\u00e9cilalistes de l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 en hommage \u00e0 Pierre Hadot, lui-m\u00eame philosophe fran\u00e7ais et historien de l'antiquit\u00e9 tr\u00e8s r\u00e9put\u00e9 et l'auteur d'une \u0153uvre actuelle et majeure, dont l'influence n'est pas encore assez mesur\u00e9e, d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e notamment autour de la notion d'exercice spirituel et de philosophie comme mani\u00e8re de vivre. [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/U9H8sJ1wzJuelAx","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":301,"pubplace":"Paris - Qu\u00e9bec","publisher":"Vrin - Les Presses de l'Universit\u00e9 Laval","series":"Collection Z\u00eat\u00easis: S\u00e9rie \u00abTextes et essais\u00bb","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Une anticipation du dualisme de Plotin en 51 [I\u00a08]\u00a06, 33-34 : Le \u00ab\u00a0De Iside et Osiride\u00a0\u00bb (369 A-E) de Plutarque"]}
Title | Une histoire néoplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2 |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et systématisation |
Pages | 249-272 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine |
Editor(s) | Gavray, Marc-Antoine , Michalewski, Alexandra |
Translator(s) |
Saisir le but (σκοπός) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au début de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d’Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne « les principes de toutes les réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles ». Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu’en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, à la différence de l’approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des êtres naturels. Le présent traité a pour but d’enseigner ce qui appartient en commun à toutes les réalités naturelles en tant qu’elles sont naturelles, c’est-à-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les Péripatéticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la matière et, en général, les éléments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale. La Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux réalités naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu’il répartit en deux groupes. Il reconnaît une supériorité à la cause productrice et à la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l’indice dans l’ordre que suit Aristote : matérielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premières sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et séparées de lui. Ces dernières sont plus proprement principes au sens où elles désignent ce d’où le produit provient et à quoi il retourne, tout en différant de lui. La séparation renferme le moyen d’en sortir, appelant à une transcendance qui reste néanmoins sur le même plan, celui de la physique. À ce degré, la séparation ne signifie pas la supériorité ontologique du principe, mais seulement son extériorité. De cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu’Aristote mène une étude conversive des causes, puisqu’il part de la plus basse (la cause matérielle étudiée par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication à la matière) et termine par la plus éminente (la cause finale, préoccupation ultime du physicien selon le Phédon, où Socrate enjoint à chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient à exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d’Aristote à provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la nécessité de dépasser le plan de la physique pour s’élever à d’autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu’Aristote opère reste néanmoins dans le plan d’immanence des réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique évacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale. Simplicius ne s’étend pas sur cette décision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le modèle intellectif qui préside à l’information selon l’aptitude de ce qui le reçoit, « l’essence idéale par soi à l’image de laquelle est façonné ce qui est ici-bas ». Quant à la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (δι’ οὗ) à l’égard de ce par quoi (ὑφ’ οὗ) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice intermédiaire et imparfaite, au sens où elle meut tout en étant elle-même mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c’est en raison de sa fonction première : commentant le Timée, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale désigne le principe directement moteur de la matière et de la forme, mais dont le statut est intermédiaire car son rôle moteur provient d’un principe supérieur. Par là, il désigne plus précisément l’Âme du monde, dont la motricité procède ultimement du Démiurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n’ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu’elles font intervenir des principes supérieurs aux réalités naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Idées et le Démiurge. En résumé, la Physique s’occupe des formes dans la matière, les formes non séparées, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l’intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la représentation. Autrement dit, elle vise à comprendre les formes dans la matière grâce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adaptés, sans faire appel à d’autres modes supérieurs de compréhension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes nécessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d’un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent. Sur cette base, je voudrais examiner où Simplicius situe la Physique dans l’histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l’histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la systématicité qu’il trouve chez les philosophes présocratiques. Il s’agira d’un côté de comprendre comment ces principes s’articulent à ceux privilégiés par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes supérieures, et de l’autre de montrer en quoi les Présocratiques expliquent le développement à la fois historique et taxinomique du système physique du néoplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1503,"authors_free":[{"id":2611,"entry_id":1503,"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}},{"id":2612,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":2613,"entry_id":1503,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":553,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","free_first_name":"Alexandra","free_last_name":"Michalewski","norm_person":{"id":553,"first_name":"Alexandra","last_name":"Michalewski","full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1194315127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2","main_title":{"title":"Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2"},"abstract":"Saisir le but (\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03cc\u03c2) de la Physique, souligne Simplicius au d\u00e9but de son Commentaire, implique de la situer au sein de la partie physique de la philosophie, voire de la philosophie d\u2019Aristote dans son ensemble. Elle concerne \u00ab les principes de toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles \u00bb. Par ces mots, Simplicius indique qu\u2019en tant que science des principes, la Physique se place dans une perspective immanente, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de l\u2019approche (platonicienne) qui vise les principes transcendants des \u00eatres naturels.\r\n\r\nLe pr\u00e9sent trait\u00e9 a pour but d\u2019enseigner ce qui appartient en commun \u00e0 toutes les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant qu\u2019elles sont naturelles, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire corporelles. Ce qui leur est commun, ce sont les principes et leurs concomitants. Les principes sont les causes dites au sens propre et les causes accessoires. Selon eux [i.e. les P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens], les causes sont la cause productrice et la cause finale, les causes accessoires la forme, la mati\u00e8re et, en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, les \u00e9l\u00e9ments. Platon ajoute aux causes la cause paradigmatique, aux causes accessoires la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nLa Physique concerne les principes et les concomitants communs, immanents, aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles. Simplicius identifie les principes aux quatre causes, qu\u2019il r\u00e9partit en deux groupes. Il reconna\u00eet une sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 \u00e0 la cause productrice et \u00e0 la cause finale, ce dont il trouve l\u2019indice dans l\u2019ordre que suit Aristote : mat\u00e9rielle et formelle, puis productrice et finale. Les premi\u00e8res sont des causes immanentes contenues dans le produit, les secondes des causes transcendantes et s\u00e9par\u00e9es de lui. Ces derni\u00e8res sont plus proprement principes au sens o\u00f9 elles d\u00e9signent ce d\u2019o\u00f9 le produit provient et \u00e0 quoi il retourne, tout en diff\u00e9rant de lui. La s\u00e9paration renferme le moyen d\u2019en sortir, appelant \u00e0 une transcendance qui reste n\u00e9anmoins sur le m\u00eame plan, celui de la physique. \u00c0 ce degr\u00e9, la s\u00e9paration ne signifie pas la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 ontologique du principe, mais seulement son ext\u00e9riorit\u00e9.\r\n\r\nDe cette distinction, Simplicius conclut qu\u2019Aristote m\u00e8ne une \u00e9tude conversive des causes, puisqu\u2019il part de la plus basse (la cause mat\u00e9rielle \u00e9tudi\u00e9e par les anciens qui ramenaient toute explication \u00e0 la mati\u00e8re) et termine par la plus \u00e9minente (la cause finale, pr\u00e9occupation ultime du physicien selon le Ph\u00e9don, o\u00f9 Socrate enjoint \u00e0 chercher ce en vue de quoi est ce qui vient \u00e0 exister). Ce faisant, il souligne le soin permanent d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 provoquer chez le lecteur une prise de conscience progressive de la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de d\u00e9passer le plan de la physique pour s\u2019\u00e9lever \u00e0 d\u2019autres principes de la nature. La conversion qu\u2019Aristote op\u00e8re reste n\u00e9anmoins dans le plan d\u2019immanence des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles, car la Physique \u00e9vacue deux types de causes, plus proprement platoniciennes : la cause paradigmatique et la cause instrumentale.\r\n\r\nSimplicius ne s\u2019\u00e9tend pas sur cette d\u00e9cision dans son introduction, mais il faut poursuivre le Commentaire pour en trouver les raisons. La cause paradigmatique se distingue de la cause formelle par sa transcendance. Elle est le mod\u00e8le intellectif qui pr\u00e9side \u00e0 l\u2019information selon l\u2019aptitude de ce qui le re\u00e7oit, \u00ab l\u2019essence id\u00e9ale par soi \u00e0 l\u2019image de laquelle est fa\u00e7onn\u00e9 ce qui est ici-bas \u00bb. Quant \u00e0 la cause instrumentale, elle se distingue de la cause productrice comme ce au moyen de quoi (\u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de ce par quoi (\u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57) : elle est en quelque sorte une cause productrice interm\u00e9diaire et imparfaite, au sens o\u00f9 elle meut tout en \u00e9tant elle-m\u00eame mue. Si elle est absente de la Physique, c\u2019est en raison de sa fonction premi\u00e8re : commentant le Tim\u00e9e, Proclus explique que la cause instrumentale d\u00e9signe le principe directement moteur de la mati\u00e8re et de la forme, mais dont le statut est interm\u00e9diaire car son r\u00f4le moteur provient d\u2019un principe sup\u00e9rieur. Par l\u00e0, il d\u00e9signe plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment l\u2019\u00c2me du monde, dont la motricit\u00e9 proc\u00e8de ultimement du D\u00e9miurge. On le voit, ces deux causes n\u2019ont pas leur place dans la Physique, parce qu\u2019elles font intervenir des principes sup\u00e9rieurs aux r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles en tant que naturelles : les Id\u00e9es et le D\u00e9miurge.\r\n\r\nEn r\u00e9sum\u00e9, la Physique s\u2019occupe des formes dans la mati\u00e8re, les formes non s\u00e9par\u00e9es, et elle actualise la cognition en puissance de l\u2019intellect qui se produit au moyen de la sensation et de la repr\u00e9sentation. Autrement dit, elle vise \u00e0 comprendre les formes dans la mati\u00e8re gr\u00e2ce aux modes de connaissance qui leur sont adapt\u00e9s, sans faire appel \u00e0 d\u2019autres modes sup\u00e9rieurs de compr\u00e9hension. En tant que partie de la philosophie, elle examine les principes n\u00e9cessaires pour saisir le monde (sensible) dans lequel nous vivons, d\u2019un point de vue qui lui est propre et immanent.\r\n\r\nSur cette base, je voudrais examiner o\u00f9 Simplicius situe la Physique dans l\u2019histoire de la philosophie, et en particulier dans l\u2019histoire des principes de la nature, en prenant pour cadre la syst\u00e9maticit\u00e9 qu\u2019il trouve chez les philosophes pr\u00e9socratiques. Il s\u2019agira d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9 de comprendre comment ces principes s\u2019articulent \u00e0 ceux privil\u00e9gi\u00e9s par les formes concurrentes de la physique, celles qui traitent des causes sup\u00e9rieures, et de l\u2019autre de montrer en quoi les Pr\u00e9socratiques expliquent le d\u00e9veloppement \u00e0 la fois historique et taxinomique du syst\u00e8me physique du n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. [introduction p. 249-251]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JiUJD0OfD6bN2xM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":553,"full_name":"Michalewski, Alexandra","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1503,"section_of":1491,"pages":"249-272","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1491,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Les principes cosmologiques du Platonisme : origines, influences et syst\u00e9matisation","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gavray2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Ce volume \u00e9tudie les mutations de sens que la notion de principe a connues au sein de la cosmologie platonicienne, depuis l\u2019ancienne Acad\u00e9mie jusqu\u2019au n\u00e9oplatonisme tardif. Dans cet intervalle, la question de la nature et du nombre des principes cosmologiques est apparue comme un enjeu central de la d\u00e9fense du platonisme, dans sa confrontation avec les \u00e9coles rivales, mais aussi, \u00e0 partir de l\u2019\u00e9poque imp\u00e9riale, avec le christianisme. Au sein de cette histoire, les critiques et r\u00e9ceptions aristot\u00e9liciennes ont jou\u00e9 un r\u00f4le d\u00e9terminant et ont, d'un certain point de vue, pr\u00e9par\u00e9 le tournant inaugur\u00e9 par Plotin : de Th\u00e9ophraste, qui le premier articule la causalit\u00e9 du Premier Moteur et l'h\u00e9ritage platonicien des Formes intelligibles, \u00e0 Alexandre d'Aphrodise, qui critique l'anthropomorphisme inh\u00e9rent aux th\u00e9ories providentialistes des platoniciens imp\u00e9riaux, les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens ont ouvert des pistes qui seront adapt\u00e9es et transform\u00e9es \u00e0 travers les diff\u00e9rents syst\u00e8mes n\u00e9oplatoniciens. Reprenant \u00e0 Alexandre sa critique des conceptions artificialistes de la cosmologie platonicienne, Plotin s'oppose \u00e0 lui pour d\u00e9fendre l'efficience causale des Formes intelligibles, qu'il d\u00e9finit comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives, en les ins\u00e9rant dans un syst\u00e8me de d\u00e9rivation de toutes choses depuis l'Un. \u00c0 sa suite, les diff\u00e9rents diadoques n\u00e9oplatoniciens placeront la vie au c\u0153ur du monde intelligible, d\u00e9finissant les Formes comme des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s vivantes et intellectives dot\u00e9es d\u2019une efficience propre\u3000: la puissance de faire advenir des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s d\u00e9riv\u00e9es. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xevkNHC2VXe7Wgm","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1491,"pubplace":"Turnhout","publisher":"Brepols","series":"Monoth\u00e9isme et philosophie ","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des principes Simplicius, In Phys., I, 1-2"]}
Title | Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 291-312 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle’s rejection of Plato’s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular. Porphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle’s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato’s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato’s Creator God. This was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle’s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius’ harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus’ teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought. Philoponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius’ anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds. [conclusion p. 312] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1534","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1534,"authors_free":[{"id":2673,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null},{"id":2674,"entry_id":1534,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle"},"abstract":"Let me survey what transformations we have noticed in the idea of universals in the tradition of ancient commentary on Aristotle. Boethus downgraded them. Alexander multiplied grades, going beyond Aristotle by including as a grade on the same scale conceptual universals, but ameliorated the low status of both grades by giving the non-conceptual ones certain explanatory roles. He also innovated in discussing Aristotle\u2019s rejection of Plato\u2019s Ideas by saying that even if Ideas and particulars were synonymous, sharing both name and definition, yet the definition might not be properly shared by the particular.\r\n\r\nPorphyry followed Alexander by accepting multigrade universals, but Ammonius influenced posterity by associating Porphyry with the idea that only concepts are universals. Proclus and Simplicius drew from Aristotle\u2019s concepts in Alexander when they gave reasons why Aristotle was wrong on both counts about Plato\u2019s Ideas: Ideas were not universals, except in a qualified sense, but they were causes. Proclus accepted three levels of reality: Ideas before the many particulars and two grades of universal, one in the many particulars and a conceptual one modeled after the many particulars. His pupil Ammonius accepted three levels but transformed the highest one into non-universal concepts in the mind of Plato\u2019s Creator God.\r\n\r\nThis was the first of two steps in presenting Aristotle as agreeing with Plato, contrary to the complaints of Proclus, because Aristotle\u2019s God was a thinker who entertained concepts in his mind. Ammonius\u2019 harmonization of Aristotle with Plato was completed by rejecting the claim of Proclus, and of Proclus\u2019 teacher Syrianus, that Aristotle did not recognize his own arguments as implying that God was a Creator, just as Plato thought.\r\n\r\nPhiloponus diverged from Ammonius, and from Ammonius\u2019 anonymous editor, by giving to concepts the role of being what we define and predicate. But only in his theological work did he reach the final transformation of making concepts into the only universals, thus concluding that the Christian Trinity consisted of three godheads having no unity except as a universal Godhead existing only in our minds.\r\n[conclusion p. 312]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fOcJ4wUL2cQ6Ysg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1534,"section_of":1419,"pages":"291-312","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Universals Transformed in the Commentators on Aristotle"]}
Title | Uno stoico di età giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto |
Type | Book Section |
Language | Italian |
Date | 1996 |
Published in | Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994) |
Pages | 107-116 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Cortassa, Guido |
Editor(s) | Conca, Fabrizio |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/8BwDS59793lFKd2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1472","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1472,"authors_free":[{"id":2547,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":541,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","free_first_name":"Fabrizio","free_last_name":"Conca","norm_person":{"id":541,"first_name":"Fabrizio","last_name":"Conca","full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157349595","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2548,"entry_id":1472,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":542,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cortassa, Guido","free_first_name":"Guido","free_last_name":"Cortassa","norm_person":{"id":542,"first_name":"Guido","last_name":"Cortassa","full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto","main_title":{"title":"Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1996","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8BwDS59793lFKd2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":541,"full_name":"Conca, Fabrizio","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":542,"full_name":"Cortassa, Guido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1472,"section_of":1471,"pages":"107-116","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1471,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"it","title":"Byzantina Mediolanensia, Atti del V Congresso Nazionale di Studi Bizantini (Milano, 19- 22 ottobre 1994)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Conca1996","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1996","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4FIpP1ncE8R5FJL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1471,"pubplace":"Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro)","publisher":"","series":"Medioevo romanzo e orientale. Colloqui","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Uno stoico di et\u00e0 giustinianea: Simplicio interprete di Epitteto"]}
Title | Vorschläge zur Lösung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1974 |
Published in | PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus |
Pages | 261-319 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Editor(s) | Wiesner, Jürgen |
Translator(s) |
Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios besteht keine völlige Parallelität, weshalb inXG als Quelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn während die MXG-Prädikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und Simpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent stammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als "spät- eleatische Quelle" bezeichneten, hat MXG zusätzlich einen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom Rest abweichenden (kürzere und einfachere Aussage ohne Dichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widersprüchlichen Prädikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. Prädikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. 23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch der zuverlässige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in gleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Prädikat reihe für den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), geht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben Ausführungen des Eresiers zurück.Doch auch Simplikios gibt über das mit MXG Gemeinsame hinaus Auszüge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- 29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. 986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"433","_score":null,"_source":{"id":433,"authors_free":[{"id":583,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2170,"entry_id":433,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":75,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","free_first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","free_last_name":"Wiesner","norm_person":{"id":75,"first_name":"J\u00fcrgen","last_name":"Wiesner","full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140610847","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"},"abstract":"Zwischen den Xenophanesreferaten von MXG und Simplikios \r\nbesteht keine v\u00f6llige Parallelit\u00e4t, weshalb inXG als \r\nQuelle von Simplikios ausscheidet. Denn w\u00e4hrend die \r\nMXG-Pr\u00e4dikate 1, 2, 3, 6 (977 a 14-36, 977 b 3-18; und \r\nSimpl.Phys. 22,31- 23,9 einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ent\u00ad\r\nstammen, die wir wegen gewisser Eigenheiten als \"sp\u00e4t- \r\neleatische Quelle\" bezeichneten, hat MXG zus\u00e4tzlich \r\neinen Mittelteil (977 a 37- 977 b 2; mit formal vom \r\nRest abweichenden (k\u00fcrzere und einfachere Aussage ohne \r\nDichotomie) und zu diesem teilweise widerspr\u00fcchlichen \r\nPr\u00e4dikaten (Unvereinbarkeit Kugel - Grenzantinomie;. \r\nPr\u00e4dikate dieses MXG-Mittelteils findet Simplikios Phys. \r\n23,16 ff. bei Alexander und greift sie an; da aber auch \r\nder zuverl\u00e4ssige Theophrastexzerptor hippolytos sie in \r\ngleicher Polge wie Alexander innerhalb einer Pr\u00e4dikat\u00ad\r\nreihe f\u00fcr den Gott des Xenophanes nennt (Ref. I 14,2), \r\ngeht also der Mittelteil des MXG-Referats auf dieselben \r\nAusf\u00fchrungen des Eresiers zur\u00fcck.Doch auch Simplikios gibt \u00fcber das mit MXG Gemeinsame \r\nhinaus Ausz\u00fcge aus Theophrast (dessen Dame Phys. 22,28- \r\n29), die unverkennbar Elemente aus Aristoteles Metaphys. \r\n986 b 10 ff. enthalten. [conclusion p. 319]","btype":2,"date":"1974","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tEjo8iqE5bxx49Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":75,"full_name":"Wiesner, J\u00fcrgen","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":433,"section_of":2,"pages":"261-319","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":2,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"PS.-Aristoteles, MXG : Der historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte des Eleatismus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Wiesner1974a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1974","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1974","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wvYIPOcDKdaOGFN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":2,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Hakkert","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Vorschl\u00e4ge zur L\u00f6sung des Problems der Xenophanesberichte von MXG und Simplikios"]}
Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 127-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"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}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
Title | What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2020 |
Published in | Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus |
Pages | 115-141 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Longo, Angela |
Editor(s) | Finamore, John F. , Manolea, Christina-Panagiota |
Translator(s) |
So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato’s Phaedrus (245c–e) and Aristotle’s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences. Plato’s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle’s belief that, despite the self-mover’s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul. What seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle’s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5). Our inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c–e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of “that which is moved by something else,” “that which moves by itself,” and “that which moves while remaining unmoved.” This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato’s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics. From the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato’s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue. Finally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias’ points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias’ scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius’ extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle. [conclusion p. 140-141] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1486","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1486,"authors_free":[{"id":2571,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2572,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2573,"entry_id":1486,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":551,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","free_first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","free_last_name":"Manolea","norm_person":{"id":551,"first_name":"Christina-Panagiota","last_name":"Manolea","full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12962330X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"So far, our inquiry has established that in late Antiquity the texts of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus (245c\u2013e) and Aristotle\u2019s Physics (VIII 5) were thought to be referring to each other, and to show both a basic agreement and significant divergences.\r\n\r\nPlato\u2019s contention that the self-mover is a principle of movement and is to be identified with the soul is contrasted with Aristotle\u2019s belief that, despite the self-mover\u2019s primacy among moving beings, the ultimate principle of movement is an unmoved mover, which only in the case of animals can be identified with the soul.\r\n\r\nWhat seems to prompt Hermias to compare Plato (whom he is commenting on) with Aristotle (whom he repeatedly mentions) is his aim to reconcile the two great authorities of Late Antique Neoplatonist thinkers. As we have seen, Hermias frequently, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s Physics, particularly chapter 5 of book VIII, but also other sections of it (e.g., book II for the distinction between natural and artificial beings, book IV for the belief that actual infinity does not exist; to this list we may add the explicit quotation of Phys. II 2194b.13 in the section of the scholia we discussed above). Besides, Hermias clearly, if implicitly, refers to Aristotle\u2019s De anima for the view that no bodily motions occur in the soul (De an. I 3, 405b.31ss.) and that there exist a passive and an active intellect (De an. III 5).\r\n\r\nOur inquiry enables us to conclude that, historically speaking, it was the exegesis of Phaedrus 245c\u2013e that originated the lexical and conceptual triad of \u201cthat which is moved by something else,\u201d \u201cthat which moves by itself,\u201d and \u201cthat which moves while remaining unmoved.\u201d This triad, which played a key role in the philosophical schools of Athens and Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, is rooted in the exegesis of Plato\u2019s Phaedrus, yet it includes Aristotelian doctrines as well, most notably from the Physics.\r\n\r\nFrom the point of view of the exegetical strategy, although both Hermias and Simplicius aimed to harmonize the doctrines of the two highest authorities in Greek philosophy, Plato and Aristotle, probably in an attempt to defend them from the unstoppable rise of Christianity, they display different levels of sympathy and theoretical effort. Showing his clear preference for Plato\u2019s doctrine, Hermias seems to employ quite rudimentary philosophical tools. Simplicius, due to his greater sympathy for Aristotle, focuses on the definitions of the terms at issue.\r\n\r\nFinally, Simplicius can be said to make Hermias\u2019 points more explicit and detailed. Hermias seems to take for granted the comparison between the Phaedrus and the Physics, and leaves it implicit, while Simplicius makes it explicit. Moreover, as compared to Hermias\u2019 scholia on the Phaedrus, Simplicius\u2019 extensive commentary on the Physics includes many more and much longer quotations from the works of Plato and Aristotle.\r\n[conclusion p. 140-141]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RbX36KCg4F9Wcfd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":551,"full_name":"Manolea, Christina-Panagiota","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1486,"section_of":1487,"pages":"115-141","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1487,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Studies in Hermias\u2019 Commentary on Plato\u2019s Phaedrus is a collection of twelve essays that consider aspects of Hermias\u2019 philosophy, including his notions of the soul, logic, and method of exegesis. The essays also consider Hermias\u2019 work in the tradition of Neoplatonism, particularly in relation to the thought of Iamblichus and Proclus. The collection grapples with the question of the originality of Hermias\u2019 commentary\u2014the only extant work of Hermias\u2014which is a series of lectures notes of his teacher, Syrianus. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/odl9mOkFu3fCl3K","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1487,"pubplace":"Amsterdam","publisher":"Brill","series":"Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition","volume":"24","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["What Is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity"]}
Title | What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Published in | A Companion to Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 597-622 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Gill, Mary Louise , Pellegrin, Pierre |
Translator(s) |
Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of communal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school’s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical pedagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"503","_score":null,"_source":{"id":503,"authors_free":[{"id":696,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":697,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":208,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gill, Mary Louise","free_first_name":"Mary Louise","free_last_name":"Gill","norm_person":{"id":208,"first_name":"Mary Louise ","last_name":"Gill","full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131938045","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":698,"entry_id":503,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":209,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","free_first_name":"Pierre","free_last_name":"Pellegrin","norm_person":{"id":209,"first_name":"Pierre","last_name":"Pellegrin","full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136458742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators","main_title":{"title":"What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators"},"abstract":"Neoplatonic thought at the end of antiquity - like that of most of the schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period - has an essentially exegetical and scholastic dimension. Beginning with the classical and Hellenistic period, philosophy in Greece is inseparable from the existence of schools (private or public), often organized as places of com\u00admunal life (sunousia), in which the explication of the texts of the school's founders came to be one of the main activities. The practice of exegesis of written texts supplanted the ancient practice of dialogue. It was sustained through its application to canonical texts, and was put to everyday use in the framework of courses in the explication of texts. The social reality of the school as an institution, with its hierarchy, its diadochos (i.e., the successor to the school\u2019s founder), its structure as a conventicle in which communal life was practiced, its library, its regulation of time, and its programs organ\u00adized around the reading of canonical texts, constitutes a concrete context into which we should reinsert the practice of exegesis, which is the heart of philosophical ped\u00adagogy and the matrix of doctrinal and dogmatic works. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S0TwJW1NoM7Owd5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":208,"full_name":"Gill, Mary Louise ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":209,"full_name":"Pellegrin, Pierre","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":503,"section_of":167,"pages":"597-622","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":167,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gill\/Pellegrin2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"A Companion to Ancient Philosophy provides a comprehensive and current overview of the history of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy from its origins until late antiquity.\r\nComprises an extensive collection of original essays, featuring contributions from both rising stars and senior scholars of ancient philosophy\r\nIntegrates analytic and continental traditions\r\nExplores the development of various disciplines, such as mathematics, logic, grammar, physics, and medicine, in relation to ancient philosophy\r\nIncludes an illuminating introduction, bibliography, chronology, maps and an index","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qzOjm6CsROqhaCL","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":167,"pubplace":"Malden \u2013 Oxford - Victoria","publisher":"Blackwell Publishers","series":"Blackwell Companions to Philosophy","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators"]}
Title | What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Published in | One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato’s Timaeus Today |
Pages | 151-163 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mueller, Ian |
Editor(s) | Mohr, Richard D. , Sattler, Barbara M. |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius’ commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle’s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius’ basic conception of what we call Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says: The disagreement between the philosophers |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"952","_score":null,"_source":{"id":952,"authors_free":[{"id":1429,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1430,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":271,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","free_first_name":"Richard D.","free_last_name":"Mohr","norm_person":{"id":271,"first_name":"Richard D.","last_name":"Mohr","full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132154315","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1431,"entry_id":952,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":272,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","free_first_name":"Barbara M.","free_last_name":"Sattler","norm_person":{"id":272,"first_name":"Barbara M.","last_name":"Sattler","full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13210749X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers","main_title":{"title":"What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers"},"abstract":"In this essay, I want to say a very few things about Neo-Platonist interpretations of the Timaeus relating to the receptacle and the geometric characterization of earth, water, air, and fire. The starting point of my reflections was translating Simplicius\u2019 commentary on books 3 and 4 of Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, and much of what I say is based upon that. But I will also be invoking a passage from his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics and some material in John Philoponus and Proclus. I begin with some remarks about Simplicius\u2019 basic conception of what we call Aristotle\u2019s criticisms of Plato. At the beginning of his extensive discussion of Aristotle\u2019s objections to Plato\u2019s geometrical chemistry, Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n The disagreement between the philosophers <Plato and Aristotle>\r\n is not substantive, but Aristotle pays attention to those who\r\n understand Plato superficially and frequently raises objections\r\n against the apparent meaning of what Plato says and what can\r\n be understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 640, 28\u201331)\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 point is not that Aristotle is a superficial reader, but that he raises objections to the surface meaning of what Plato says in order to prevent other people from espousing those superficial readings. In connection with another passage in On the Heavens in which Aristotle connects Plato\u2019s association of the cube with earth to earth\u2019s stability, Simplicius refers to Aristotle\u2019s earlier criticism of Plato for allegedly saying that the earth has a winding motion around the pole:\r\n\r\n It is worth pointing out that Aristotle does know that Plato thinks\r\n the earth is steady since it was Plato who said that it is a cube\r\n because it is stable and remains fixed. Consequently, when in\r\n the preceding book he asserted that the earth is said by Timaeus\r\n to be wound and move <around the pole>, he was confronting\r\n those who understand Timaeus\u2019 words in this way.\r\n (Simplicius, On Aristotle\u2019s On the Heavens, 662, 31\u2013663, 2)\r\n\r\nSo, Aristotle knows and shares Plato\u2019s true view, and his criticisms are all directed at the superficial readings of Plato made by others. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":2,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/26CCMYYQai0hS5Z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":271,"full_name":"Mohr, Richard D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":272,"full_name":"Sattler, Barbara M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":952,"section_of":300,"pages":"151-163","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":300,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"One Book, The Whole Universe: Plato\u2019s Timaeus Today","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Mohr2010","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2010","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"This collection of original essays brings together philosophers, classicists, physicists, and architects to reveal the meaning and assess the impact of one of the most profound and influential works of Western letters - Plato's Timaeus, a work that comes as close as any to giving a comprehensive account of life, the universe, and everything, and does so in a startlingly narrow compass.\r\n\r\nThe Timaeus gives an account of the nature of god and creation, a theory of knowledge, a taxonomy of the soul and perception, and an account of objects that gods and soul might encounter... [offical abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tmvgz6Nr6OBQMua","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":300,"pubplace":"Las Vegas - Zurich - Athens","publisher":"Parmenides Publishing","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["What's the Matter? Some Neo-Platonist Answers"]}
Title | When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Published in | Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel |
Pages | 325-340 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
Editor(s) | Hoine, Pieter d' , Van Riel, Gerd |
Translator(s) |
At Enchiridion § 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (μαντική). Epictetus’ answer, along with Simplicius’ commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus’ Stoicism and Simplicius’ Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus’ view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/isb0txplRikCizk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"591","_score":null,"_source":{"id":591,"authors_free":[{"id":840,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2355,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":104,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","free_first_name":"Pieter d' ","free_last_name":"Hoine","norm_person":{"id":104,"first_name":"Pieter d' ","last_name":"Hoine","full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051361575","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2356,"entry_id":591,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":105,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Van Riel, Gerd","free_first_name":"Gerd","free_last_name":"Van Riel","norm_person":{"id":105,"first_name":"Gerd ","last_name":"Van Riel","full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140513264","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us","main_title":{"title":"When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"},"abstract":"At Enchiridion \u00a7 32, Epictetus raises the question of whether, and under what conditions, one should consult the art of divination (\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae). Epictetus\u2019 answer, along with Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the passage four centuries later, provides a glimpse into late antique conceptions of fate, providence, and human responsi-bility. While united in a general acceptance of divination as an authentic science, doctrinal differences between Epictetus\u2019 Stoicism and Simplicius\u2019 Neoplatonism lead them to interpret the philosophical significance of the practice in different ways. As determinists who believed in an all-embracing conception of fate, the Stoics believed divination could facilitate the task of the sage living in accordance with that fate.1 But how exactly it does so requires explication since the philoso-pher in Epictetus\u2019 view does not seek the same thing from divination as most other people. What then does one gain from the art? [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/isb0txplRikCizk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":104,"full_name":"Hoine, Pieter d' ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":105,"full_name":"Van Riel, Gerd ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":591,"section_of":258,"pages":"325-340","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":258,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Fate, providence and moral responsibility in ancient, medieval and early modern thought. Studies in honour of Carlos Steel","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"d_hoine2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2012","abstract":"This book forms a major contribution to the discussion on fate, providence and moral responsibility in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Early Modern times. Through 37 original papers, renowned scholars from many different countries, as well as a number of young and promising researchers, write the history of the philosophical problems of freedom and determinism since its origins in pre-socratic philosophy up to the seventeenth century.\r\nThe main focus points are classic Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), the Neoplatonic synthesis of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius), and thirteenth-century scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent). They do not only represent key moments in the intellectual history of the West, but are also the central figures and periods to which Carlos Steel, the dedicatary of this volume, has devoted his philosophical career. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ga4rzoji8r8swzw","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":258,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Leuven University Press","series":"Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Series 1","volume":"49","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["When should a philosopher consult divination? Epictetus and Simplicius on fate and what is up to us"]}
Title | Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 9-43 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato’s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato. Porphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato’s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato’s thinking on a given issue. This is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry’s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1547","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1547,"authors_free":[{"id":2703,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":null},{"id":2704,"entry_id":1547,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?","main_title":{"title":"Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?"},"abstract":"Let me summarize the argument of this paper. I have argued that Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle because he found these works to represent an elaboration on and a development of Plato\u2019s philosophy. This is a development in the sense that Aristotle not only wrestles with philosophical issues that Plato first explored and does so in a manner and with a method inspired by Plato, but also that Aristotle often takes views similar to those of Plato.\r\n\r\nPorphyry does not deny that Aristotle often explores new territory; this is actually one reason why Porphyry devotes so much energy to studying and expounding Aristotle. What Porphyry does deny is that Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato\u2019s philosophical views when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since these may be inspired by Plato or continue in some way Plato\u2019s thinking on a given issue.\r\n\r\nThis is not something that Porphyry argues explicitly in his commentaries. Rather, this view lies in the background and is implicit. I argued, though, that this view motivates Porphyry\u2019s Aristotelian commentaries. That is, in his commentaries, Porphyry sets out to substantiate his views on philosophical topics like causation, cosmogony, matter, the nature of linguistic items and their relation to things, concept formation, and so on, with reference to texts of the Platonist tradition in philosophy. And this tradition, Porphyry thinks, crucially includes Aristotle as well. [conclusion p. 36-37]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1547,"section_of":289,"pages":"9-43","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Why Did Porphyry Write Aristotelian Commentaries?"]}
Title | Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2024 |
Published in | Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity |
Pages | 171-193 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Marc-Antoine Gavray |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen- tator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno’s goal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not of any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert his readers, Parmenides’ opponents, through dialectical arguments (ἐπιχειρήματα). Therefore, this article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one’s master: Simpli- cius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position. Keywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi- sias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1590","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1590,"authors_free":[{"id":2789,"entry_id":1590,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Marc-Antoine Gavray","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius"},"abstract":"This paper examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in the Eleatic ontology\r\nand tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. It shows how the commen-\r\ntator competes with his Peripatetic forerunners (Eudemus and Alexander) and makes Zeno\u2019s\r\ngoal congruent with Parmenides. Zeno talks of the same One-Being as Parmenides did, not\r\nof any physical one or being. However, instead of determining it directly, he has to convert\r\nhis readers, Parmenides\u2019 opponents, through dialectical arguments (\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1). Therefore,\r\nthis article also questions the meaning of being a disciple and rescuing one\u2019s master: Simpli-\r\ncius uses Zeno as a model for every philosopher in this position.\r\nKeywords: One-Being, dialectical arguments, dichotomia, division, Alexander of Aphrodi-\r\nsias, Simplicius, Plato, Zeno of Elea, Parmenides, Aristoteles, Eudemus of Rhodes [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1590,"section_of":1591,"pages":"171-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1591,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Eleatic Ontology from the Hellenistic Period to Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Motta_Kurfess_2024","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2024","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Parmenides is widely regarded as the most important and influential of the Presocratic philosophers. Born around 515 BCE in Elea, a Greek colony in southern Italy, he is often considered not only the founder of Eleatic philosophy but also the father of deductive reasoning, the originator of rational theology, and the wellspring of the Western ontological tradition. The impact of Parmenides\u2019 account of Being or \u201cwhat is\u201d (\u1f10\u03cc\u03bd) on subsequent thought has been vast, lasting, and varied. It is also true, as David Sedley has written, that \u201cwith Parmenides, more than with most writers, any translation is an interpretation.\u201d\r\n\r\nThus, both the profundity of Parmenides\u2019 thought and the rich verbal density of his poetry pose challenges to modern scholars\u2014just as they did to his ancient readers. These challenges were felt particularly keenly in later antiquity\u2014a period of focus in the present collection of essays\u2014when doing justice to the authority of the ancients obligated commentators to reconcile a long and complex tradition of sometimes incompatible interpretative commitments. Certain Neoplatonists (in)famously \u201charmonized\u201d points of possible tension by allowing that the Presocratics, though not far from the truth, employed enigmatic and ambiguous language, whereas Plato conveyed the truth in a clearer and more appropriate way. In this manner, the Presocratics, Parmenides among them, could be saved from apparent errors, and their unique conceptions and terminology could be incorporated within a Neoplatonic philosophical framework.\r\n\r\nThe \u201cEleatic school\u201d is commonly understood to include Parmenides, his fellow citizen Zeno, and Melissus of Samos. (Traditionally, Xenophanes of Colophon had also been included, his views about divinity seen as anticipating Parmenides\u2019 account of Being.) Parmenides and his two pupils are distinguished by their concern with methods of proof and for conceiving Being as a unitary substance, which is also immobile, unchangeable, and indivisible. The Eleatics began a series of reflections on the relation between demonstration and reality that eventually developed into Socratic and Platonic dialectic, and Plato\u2019s portrait has played a decisive role in the subsequent reception of Eleatic ideas. Since Plato\u2019s Sophist, Parmenides has been almost as famous for apparent inconsistencies as for the rigid dicta that seemed to land him in them. Moreover, in the Parmenides, which dramatically presents Parmenides and Zeno conversing in Athens with a very young Socrates (Prm. 127a\u2013b), Plato subjects his own characteristic doctrine to critique by his Eleatic predecessors, thereby initiating a tradition of critical examination of Eleatic ontology that would last until Late Antiquity and beyond. Plato\u2019s dialogues exhibit such a profound engagement with Eleatic thought that Eleatic ontology can be regarded as the hidden foundation of Platonic metaphysics.\r\n\r\nOf course, Plato and the Platonic tradition are only part of the story, and the present collection seeks, with no pretense of being exhaustive, to provide a representative survey of the reception of Eleatic ontology during the Hellenistic and late ancient periods. The essays included offer fresh perspectives on crucial points in that reception, reveal points of contact and instances of mutual interaction between competing traditions, and allow readers to reflect on the revolutionary new conceptions that thinkers of these eras developed in the course of the continuing confrontation with the venerable figure of Parmenides and the challenges posed by his thought. This volume is a collaborative effort by an international array of scholars, reflecting a range of outlooks and approaches, and exploring some of the various forms taken by the reception of Parmenides\u2019 ontology. Some of the essays were invited by the editors; others were selected by blind review from submissions made in response to a call for papers.\r\n\r\nThe arrangement of essays is roughly chronological. In chapter 1, \u201cBeing at Play: Naming and Non-Naming in the Anonymous De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia,\u201d Christopher Kurfess considers the way that names are handled in a curious document transmitted as part of the Aristotelian corpus, noting its continuities with earlier instances of the reception of Eleatic thought. In chapter 2, \u201cHealthy, Immutable, and Beautiful: Eleatic Pantheism and Epicurean Theology,\u201d Enrico Piergiacomi reconstructs an Epicurean view of, and response to, a pantheistic Parmenidean theology. In chapter 3, \u201cDualism and Platonism: Plutarch\u2019s Parmenides,\u201d Carlo Delle Donne introduces us to Plutarch\u2019s Platonism, reading Parmenides as a forerunner of Plato in both ontology and the account of the sensible world. In chapter 4, \u201cClement of Alexandria and the Eleatization of Xenophanes,\u201d William H.F. Altman focuses on Clement of Alexandria\u2019s role in preserving several key theological fragments of Xenophanes and invites us to reconsider modern scholars\u2019 dismissal of both Xenophanes\u2019 status as an Eleatic and Clement\u2019s claim of Greek philosophy\u2019s debt to Hebrew Scripture. In chapter 5, \u201cParmenides\u2019 Philosophy through Plato\u2019s Parmenides in Origen of Alexandria,\u201d Ilaria L.E. Ramelli explores the reception of Parmenides\u2019 thought in Origen, one of the main exponents of patristic philosophy. In chapter 6, \u201cPlatonism and Eleaticism,\u201d Lloyd P. Gerson provides an analysis of the appropriation of Eleatic philosophy by Plato and the Platonists, with a particular focus on Plotinus. In chapter 7, \u201cAugustine and Eleatic Ontology,\u201d Giovanni Catapano illustrates the general aspects and the essential contents of Augustinian ontology as they relate to distinctive theses of the Eleatics. In chapter 8, \u201cProclus and the Overcoming of Eleaticism without Parricide,\u201d Anna Motta investigates the debt that Plato incurred with the Eleatics according to Proclus. In chapter 9, \u201cWhy Rescue Parmenides? On Zeno\u2019s Ontology in Simplicius,\u201d Marc-Antoine Gavray examines the role Simplicius attributes to Zeno in Eleatic ontology and tries to determine his place within the Neoplatonic system. [introduction p. 7-9]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ERcBLa6PuLndpAV","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1591,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Federico II University Press","series":"Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Napoli Federico II Scuola delle Scienze Umane e Sociali Quaderni","volume":"","edition_no":"29","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Why rescue Parmenides? On Zeno's Ontology in Simplicius"]}
Title | William of Moerbeke’s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | ὁδοὶ νοῆσαι - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of Néstor-Luis Cordero |
Pages | 213-230 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Kraus, Manfred |
Editor(s) | Pulpito, Massimo , Spangenberg, Pilar |
Translator(s) |
Although Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s treatise De cáelo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De Cáelo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke’s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius’ commentary and Moerbeke’s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke’s renderings of the seven direct quotations of passages from Parmenides exhibited in In De Cáelo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"389","_score":null,"_source":{"id":389,"authors_free":[{"id":510,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":221,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraus, Manfred","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":221,"first_name":"Manfred","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1069796840","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2109,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":222,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","free_first_name":"Massimo","free_last_name":"Pulpito","norm_person":{"id":222,"first_name":"Massimo","last_name":"Pulpito","full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1144502594","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2110,"entry_id":389,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":223,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","free_first_name":"Pilar","free_last_name":"Spangenberg","norm_person":{"id":223,"first_name":"Pilar","last_name":"Spangenberg","full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"},"abstract":"Although Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s treatise De c\u00e1elo is one of the most valuable sources, in a number of cases even our only source for the transmission of particular fragments of Parmenides, compared to the commentary on the Physics it has for specific reasons been sorely neglected in the past. When J. L. Heiberg in 1894 edited the text of this commentary, he found its Latin translation by William of Moerbeke (1271), although coarse and inelegant in style, to be a highly valuable secondary textual witness. Yet while Heiberg only knew this translation from a faulty 16th-century printing, we are now in possession of reliable critical editions of the books most relevant for the Parmenides text. Recent studies have further yielded that the Greek manuscript of In De C\u00e1elo Moerbeke translated from was definitely superior to all manuscripts extant today. All the more this not only makes possible but also advises an employment ofMoerbeke\u2019s translation for the purposes of textual criticism. The essay gives a brief survey on the complex editorial history of both Simplicius\u2019 commentary and Moerbeke\u2019s translation and the current status of their texts and undertakes a close comparative reading ofMoerbeke\u2019s renderings of the seven direct quotations of \r\npassages from Parmenides exhibited in In De C\u00e1elo. It will be shown that by taking recourse to this valuable tool fundamental textual decisions can be confirmed, supported or challenged in a number of crucial passages. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mfCRRVJT48fHPdn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":221,"full_name":"Kraus, Manfred","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":222,"full_name":"Pulpito, Massimo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":223,"full_name":"Spangenberg, Pilar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":389,"section_of":1366,"pages":"213-230","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1366,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"\u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 - Ways to Think. Essays in Honour of N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Pulpito_Spangenberg2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Volume frutto del lavoro congiunto di 34 autori di lingua inglese, spagnola, francese, portoghese e italiana, \u00e8 offerto in onore di N\u00e9stor-Luis Cordero, uno dei massimi studiosi viventi del pensiero antico. Presentato al congresso internazionale \u201cSocratica IV\u201d a Buenos Aires (novembre 2018). [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZlCroOu0HaYWoc","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1366,"pubplace":"Bologna","publisher":"Diogene","series":"Axioth\u00e9a","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":389,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Axiothea","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"213-230"}},"sort":["William of Moerbeke\u2019s Translation of Simplicius' On de Caelo and the Constitution of the Text of Parmenides"]}
Title | § 162. Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3) |
Pages | 2060-2084 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Riedweg, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar |
Translator(s) |
Der Eintrag bietet eine ausführliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschließlich einer Diskussion über sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios’ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manichäismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"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}},{"id":939,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":386,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Riedweg","norm_person":{"id":386,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Riedweg","full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111151228","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":387,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Wyrwa","norm_person":{"id":387,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Wyrwa","full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142943592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Mehr als f\u00fcnfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet f\u00fchrende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler pr\u00e4sentieren in diesem f\u00fcnften und letzten Band der Reihe \u00abDie Philosophie der Antike\u00bb das \u00fcberaus facettenreiche pagane, j\u00fcdische und fr\u00fchchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus \u2013 einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendl\u00e4ndischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, f\u00fcr die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle f\u00fcr Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.\r\n\r\nDer Disposition liegt die \u00dcberzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der j\u00fcdisch-\u00adchristlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei gro\u00dfe weltanschauliche Bl\u00f6cke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde f\u00fcr den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gew\u00e4hlt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Sch\u00fcler-Verh\u00e4ltnis, die Schulzugeh\u00f6rigkeit eines Autors und schlie\u00dflich ebenfalls seine religi\u00f6se Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung ber\u00fccksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil \u00fcberraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religions\u00fcbergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art \u00e4u\u00dferst plastisch beschrieben und f\u00fcr die Gegenwart erschlossen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u00a7 162. Simplikios"]}
Title | §2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 141-159 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1199","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1199,"authors_free":[{"id":1770,"entry_id":1199,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)","main_title":{"title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1199,"section_of":10,"pages":"141-159","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"]}
Title | ΑΠΑΓΩΓΗ: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy |
Pages | 21-41 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karasmanis, Vassilis |
Editor(s) | Longo, Angela , Del Forno, Davide (Coll.) |
Translator(s) |
In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geometrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can be continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that «the method of geometers» to which Plato refers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1363","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1363,"authors_free":[{"id":2050,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":214,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","free_first_name":"Vassilis","free_last_name":"Karasmanis","norm_person":{"id":214,"first_name":"Vassilis","last_name":"Karasmanis","full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1190132680","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2403,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":463,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Longo, Angela","free_first_name":"Angela","free_last_name":"Longo","norm_person":{"id":463,"first_name":"Angela","last_name":"Longo","full_name":"Longo, Angela","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1113305118","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2404,"entry_id":1363,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":464,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Del Forno, Davide (Coll.)","free_first_name":"Davide","free_last_name":"Del Forno","norm_person":{"id":464,"first_name":"Davide","last_name":"Del Forno","full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1070718955","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno","main_title":{"title":"\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"},"abstract":"In this essay, I am going to argue that the Greek geometer of the late fifth century B.C. Hippocrates of Chios1 was the first who systematically employed a method of indirect proof called apagoge (reduction). Apagoge is probably the early stage of the geo\u00admetrical method of analysis and synthesis, and consists roughly in reducing one problem (or theorem) to another. Reductions can \r\nbe continued until we arrive at something already known, or at something that is possible to be solved directly. Finally, I shall support the view that \u00abthe method of geometers\u00bb to which Plato \r\nrefers in the Meno is the geometrical method of apagoge. [introduction, p. 21]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/vD5NrSUbtb9PXEC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":214,"full_name":"Karasmanis, Vassilis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":463,"full_name":"Longo, Angela","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":464,"full_name":"Del Forno, Davide","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1363,"section_of":355,"pages":"21-41","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":355,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Longo2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2011","abstract":"This volume offers an over-arching study of teh use of hypothetical arguments in ancient philosophy. It may claim to be pioneering inasmuch as it considers texts and authors from the classical period from the Hellenistic age, and from late antiquity. Its order is chronological: from Plato to Damascius. Its approach is plural: there are historico-critical essays and there are pieces of a more theoretical nature; the theoretical parts of the volume aim to explain what sort of thing a hypothesis is, what marks off arguments based upon hypotheses from other arguments, what rules of inference hypothetical argumentation invokes, what a hypothecial argument may hope to achieve, and so on. \r\nThe primary aspiration of the volume is to provide a wide view of a subject which, insofar as it is in itself semwhat technical, tends to attract a nice and narrow inspection. Thus one criterion which contributors have been encouraged to observe is this: the use of hypothetical arguments - or of the \"hypothetical method\" - should be considered not in isolation but rather in connection with the other dialectical procedures of division, definition, demonstration, and analysis. The volume makes a first step towrds a synthetic account of the use of hypotheses in ancient dialectic. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ABkBQ3CmiH2yDCa","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":355,"pubplace":"Napoli","publisher":"Bibliopolis","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1363,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"21-41"}},"sort":["\u0391\u03a0\u0391\u0393\u03a9\u0393\u0397: The method of Hippocrates of Chios and Plato's hypothetical method in the Meno"]}
Title | Φάος et τόπος. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chaldaïques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Published in | Oracles Chaldaïques: fragments et philosophie |
Pages | 101-152 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | Lecerf, Adrien , Saudelli, Lucia , Seng, Helmut |
Translator(s) |
La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire à la Physique d’Aristote, qui est consacrée à la notion de « lieu » et qui prend la suite de l’explication continue du texte même d’Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement désignée par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parallèlement l’explication du traité aristotélicien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie néoplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines néoplatoniciennes de l’espace et du temps des exposés d’importance majeure. Le Corollarium de loco présente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire néoplatonicienne des doctrines du « lieu », d’Aristote à Damascius (et Simplicius lui-même), qui nous a conservé de précieux fragments de deux traités perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties très nettement distinguées. Une section dialectique, tout d’abord, dans laquelle Simplicius mène un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristotélicien (Physique et De caelo), en répondant au traitement par Alexandre d’Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette première partie les doctrines antérieures à celle de Damascius (d’Aristote à Syrianus) et s’attache à comprendre les raisons de leur échec. Vient ensuite une pars construens, ou plutôt un exposé systématique consacré à la doctrine véridique du « lieu », celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et précise. Dans la première partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre près de 13 pages (de l’édition Diels), soit près du tiers de l’ensemble de la digression, à l’examen critique des doctrines du « lieu » qui se sont intéressées à un type de définition rejeté (et négligé) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un « espace » ou une « étendue ». La discussion de ces doctrines (représentées sous des formes diverses par Démocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particulièrement importante car, conformément à une méthode d’origine aristotélicienne, l’examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une réfutation, mais vise aussi à extraire la part de vérité contenue dans les opinions examinées. La lecture d’ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a prêté un intérêt tout particulier aux définitions du « lieu » comme « étendue » (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu’elles préfiguraient en quelque sorte – de façon certes maladroite et fautive – la doctrine de son maître Damascius. On passe alors de la considération de l’« étendue » à celle de la « distension » néoplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu’il en vient à l’exposé complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumière le fait qu’il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le « lieu » et la « distension », qui se réalise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une détermination « inétendue », qui « œuvre à la perfection des corps », et plus précisément il est la « mesure rassemblante » d’une modalité particulière de la « distension », désignée par le terme de « disposition » : disposition des parties d’une totalité à l’intérieur de cette totalité ou encore position d’un corps à l’intérieur d’un autre corps envisagé comme totalité plus englobante. Malgré l’autorité dont Proclus est revêtu aux yeux de tous les néoplatoniciens de la fin de l’Antiquité, et malgré le respect profond que Simplicius éprouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de réfuter que le lieu soit un corps, fût-ce un corps immatériel, afin que le lieu puisse ultérieurement être défini comme une mesure inétendue et incorporelle de la « distension » des corps (Damascius). Dans le traité perdu dont des passages centraux sont conservés par Simplicius, Proclus démontre sa doctrine par la conjonction d’une démarche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours à deux confirmations offertes par des autorités sacrées : la Raison rencontre la Révélation. La première démarche part de prémisses aristotéliciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l’hypothèse selon laquelle le « lieu » serait une « étendue », et elle démontre que c’est une « étendue » corporelle, comprise comme sphère de lumière pure coïncidant avec la sphère cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immatériel. La seconde démarche consiste à poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les données du mythe d’Er dans la République, et avec le sens attribué à un vers chaldaïque qui énonce de façon mystérieuse que l’Âme du Monde « anime de fond en comble lumière, feu, éther, mondes ». Le lieu-lumière démontré par la procédure rationnelle est enseigné par le sens profond (et caché) que l’on décèle dans le mythe (c’est la colonne de lumière de République X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole même des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la République identifie parallèlement la lumière de République X au lieu du Ciel, réaffirme son identité avec la lumière chaldaïque, et fait référence à ce traité en offrant une doctrine tout à fait concordante. L’autorité des Oracles Chaldaïques est pour les néoplatoniciens de cette époque la source ultime de la Vérité, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas à pas, une longue discussion exégétique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l’intérêt porté aux Oracles Chaldaïques par Simplicius, au sein même d’un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique. L’objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction commentée de l’ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de façon à montrer l’osmose entre la démarche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond à une recherche de Physique, et l’opération herméneutique appliquée à une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d’un raisonnement et une expérience de foi puisqu’elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera précédée de quelques remarques préliminaires sur l’Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible à la fois dans l’édition de Diels et dans l’édition mise en ligne déjà mentionnée (éd. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"940","_score":null,"_source":{"id":940,"authors_free":[{"id":1395,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1396,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":197,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","free_first_name":"Adrien","free_last_name":"Lecerf","norm_person":{"id":197,"first_name":"Adrien","last_name":"Lecerf","full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068302194","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1397,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":311,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"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}},{"id":1398,"entry_id":940,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":462,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Seng, Helmut","free_first_name":"Helmut","free_last_name":"Seng","norm_person":{"id":462,"first_name":"Helmut","last_name":"Seng","full_name":"Seng, Helmut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114500509","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)","main_title":{"title":"\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"},"abstract":"La longue digression introduite par Simplicius dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote, qui est consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 la notion de \u00ab lieu \u00bb et qui prend la suite de l\u2019explication continue du texte m\u00eame d\u2019Aristote (Physique IV 1-5, 208a27 - 213a11), est traditionnellement d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le titre (sans support dans la tradition manuscrite) de Corollarium de loco. Avec le Corollarium de tempore, qui accompagne parall\u00e8lement l\u2019explication du trait\u00e9 aristot\u00e9licien du temps (Physique IV 10-14, 217b29 - 224a17), il constitue un diptyque essentiel pour notre connaissance de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne de la Nature, car il offre sur les doctrines n\u00e9oplatoniciennes de l\u2019espace et du temps des expos\u00e9s d\u2019importance majeure.\r\n\r\nLe Corollarium de loco pr\u00e9sente, sur 45 pages des CAG, une histoire n\u00e9oplatonicienne des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Damascius (et Simplicius lui-m\u00eame), qui nous a conserv\u00e9 de pr\u00e9cieux fragments de deux trait\u00e9s perdus de Proclus et de Damascius, et suit un plan en deux parties tr\u00e8s nettement distingu\u00e9es. Une section dialectique, tout d\u2019abord, dans laquelle Simplicius m\u00e8ne un examen critique des contradictions du dossier aristot\u00e9licien (Physique et De caelo), en r\u00e9pondant au traitement par Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise de la magna quaestio. Il discute dans cette premi\u00e8re partie les doctrines ant\u00e9rieures \u00e0 celle de Damascius (d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 Syrianus) et s\u2019attache \u00e0 comprendre les raisons de leur \u00e9chec.\r\n\r\nVient ensuite une pars construens, ou plut\u00f4t un expos\u00e9 syst\u00e9matique consacr\u00e9 \u00e0 la doctrine v\u00e9ridique du \u00ab lieu \u00bb, celle de Damascius, que Simplicius retouche et pr\u00e9cise. Dans la premi\u00e8re partie, dialectique, Simplicius consacre pr\u00e8s de 13 pages (de l\u2019\u00e9dition Diels), soit pr\u00e8s du tiers de l\u2019ensemble de la digression, \u00e0 l\u2019examen critique des doctrines du \u00ab lieu \u00bb qui se sont int\u00e9ress\u00e9es \u00e0 un type de d\u00e9finition rejet\u00e9 (et n\u00e9glig\u00e9) par Aristote, celui qui fait du lieu un \u00ab espace \u00bb ou une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb. La discussion de ces doctrines (repr\u00e9sent\u00e9es sous des formes diverses par D\u00e9mocrite, Straton de Lampsaque, Syrianus, et Proclus) est particuli\u00e8rement importante car, conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 une m\u00e9thode d\u2019origine aristot\u00e9licienne, l\u2019examen dialectique des opinions consiste non seulement en une critique et une r\u00e9futation, mais vise aussi \u00e0 extraire la part de v\u00e9rit\u00e9 contenue dans les opinions examin\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa lecture d\u2019ensemble de la digression permet de comprendre que Simplicius a pr\u00eat\u00e9 un int\u00e9r\u00eat tout particulier aux d\u00e9finitions du \u00ab lieu \u00bb comme \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb (corporelle ou incorporelle) parce qu\u2019elles pr\u00e9figuraient en quelque sorte \u2013 de fa\u00e7on certes maladroite et fautive \u2013 la doctrine de son ma\u00eetre Damascius. On passe alors de la consid\u00e9ration de l\u2019\u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb \u00e0 celle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb n\u00e9oplatonicienne. En effet, lorsqu\u2019il en vient \u00e0 l\u2019expos\u00e9 complet de la doctrine de Damascius, Simplicius met en lumi\u00e8re le fait qu\u2019il y a une liaison fondamentale entre le \u00ab lieu \u00bb et la \u00ab distension \u00bb, qui se r\u00e9alise dans la Procession. Le lieu est une d\u00e9termination \u00ab in\u00e9tendue \u00bb, qui \u00ab \u0153uvre \u00e0 la perfection des corps \u00bb, et plus pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment il est la \u00ab mesure rassemblante \u00bb d\u2019une modalit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re de la \u00ab distension \u00bb, d\u00e9sign\u00e9e par le terme de \u00ab disposition \u00bb : disposition des parties d\u2019une totalit\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur de cette totalit\u00e9 ou encore position d\u2019un corps \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur d\u2019un autre corps envisag\u00e9 comme totalit\u00e9 plus englobante.\r\n\r\nMalgr\u00e9 l\u2019autorit\u00e9 dont Proclus est rev\u00eatu aux yeux de tous les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9, et malgr\u00e9 le respect profond que Simplicius \u00e9prouve pour lui, il lui importe ici de r\u00e9futer que le lieu soit un corps, f\u00fbt-ce un corps immat\u00e9riel, afin que le lieu puisse ult\u00e9rieurement \u00eatre d\u00e9fini comme une mesure in\u00e9tendue et incorporelle de la \u00ab distension \u00bb des corps (Damascius). Dans le trait\u00e9 perdu dont des passages centraux sont conserv\u00e9s par Simplicius, Proclus d\u00e9montre sa doctrine par la conjonction d\u2019une d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique et apodictique, et par un recours \u00e0 deux confirmations offertes par des autorit\u00e9s sacr\u00e9es : la Raison rencontre la R\u00e9v\u00e9lation.\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re d\u00e9marche part de pr\u00e9misses aristot\u00e9liciennes (Physique IV 4, 212a2-6). Elle promeut l\u2019hypoth\u00e8se selon laquelle le \u00ab lieu \u00bb serait une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb, et elle d\u00e9montre que c\u2019est une \u00ab \u00e9tendue \u00bb corporelle, comprise comme sph\u00e8re de lumi\u00e8re pure co\u00efncidant avec la sph\u00e8re cosmique : un corps immobile, indivisible, immat\u00e9riel. La seconde d\u00e9marche consiste \u00e0 poser la concordance de cette conclusion rationnelle avec les donn\u00e9es du mythe d\u2019Er dans la R\u00e9publique, et avec le sens attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 un vers chalda\u00efque qui \u00e9nonce de fa\u00e7on myst\u00e9rieuse que l\u2019\u00c2me du Monde \u00ab anime de fond en comble lumi\u00e8re, feu, \u00e9ther, mondes \u00bb.\r\n\r\nLe lieu-lumi\u00e8re d\u00e9montr\u00e9 par la proc\u00e9dure rationnelle est enseign\u00e9 par le sens profond (et cach\u00e9) que l\u2019on d\u00e9c\u00e8le dans le mythe (c\u2019est la colonne de lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X 616b4-c4) et dans la parole m\u00eame des dieux. Le commentaire de Proclus sur la R\u00e9publique identifie parall\u00e8lement la lumi\u00e8re de R\u00e9publique X au lieu du Ciel, r\u00e9affirme son identit\u00e9 avec la lumi\u00e8re chalda\u00efque, et fait r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 ce trait\u00e9 en offrant une doctrine tout \u00e0 fait concordante.\r\n\r\nL\u2019autorit\u00e9 des Oracles Chalda\u00efques est pour les n\u00e9oplatoniciens de cette \u00e9poque la source ultime de la V\u00e9rit\u00e9, et Simplicius engage contre Proclus, pas \u00e0 pas, une longue discussion ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique sur le sens de cet Oracle. Cette discussion est un document exceptionnel sur l\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat port\u00e9 aux Oracles Chalda\u00efques par Simplicius, au sein m\u00eame d\u2019un commentaire sur Aristote et sur une question de physique.\r\n\r\nL\u2019objet des pages qui suivent est de proposer une traduction comment\u00e9e de l\u2019ensemble du texte de Simplicius (In Phys. 611,8 - 618,7 D.), de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 montrer l\u2019osmose entre la d\u00e9marche proprement philosophique de Simplicius (et de Proclus), qui correspond \u00e0 une recherche de Physique, et l\u2019op\u00e9ration herm\u00e9neutique appliqu\u00e9e \u00e0 une parole oraculaire, laquelle est une confirmation d\u2019un raisonnement et une exp\u00e9rience de foi puisqu\u2019elle porte sur un objet divin. La traduction du texte de Simplicius sera pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e de quelques remarques pr\u00e9liminaires sur l\u2019Oracle 51. Le texte grec de Simplicius est accessible \u00e0 la fois dans l\u2019\u00e9dition de Diels et dans l\u2019\u00e9dition mise en ligne d\u00e9j\u00e0 mentionn\u00e9e (\u00e9d. Golitsis-Hoffmann). [introduction p. 101-106]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/32ZuxPLp2VNh3t0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":197,"full_name":"Lecerf, Adrien","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":311,"full_name":"Saudelli, Lucia","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":462,"full_name":"Seng, Helmut","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":940,"section_of":357,"pages":"101-152","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":357,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Oracles Chalda\u00efques: fragments et philosophie","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lecerf2014b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"Les Oracles chalda\u00efques posent nombre de probl\u00e8mes \u00e0 l\u02bchistorien de la pens\u00e9e antique, tant sur le plan de la forme que sur celui du fond.\r\n\r\nTexte datant du IIe si\u00e8cle de notre \u00e8re, en vers principalement hexam\u00e9triques, dont nous ne poss\u00e9dons que des fragments et des t\u00e9moignages, conserv\u00e9s par des auteurs post\u00e9rieurs, en langue grecque et latine, les extraits \u00e0 notre disposition rec\u00e8lent une philosophie, d\u02bcinspiration platonicienne, dont les th\u00e8mes principaux sont la triade divine form\u00e9e de P\u00e8re, Puissance et Intellect, les \u00eatres interm\u00e9diaires, l\u02bc\u00e2me et ses vicissitudes, les divers mondes.\r\n\r\nLes questions que nous souhaitons traiter, en publiant ces travaux de recherche, sont le rattachement des Oracles au mouvement philosophique du \u00ab m\u00e9dioplatonisme \u00bb et les rapports entre th\u00e9ologie chalda\u00efque et th\u00e9ologie chr\u00e9tienne. Nous \u00e9tudions \u00e9galement la fortune et l\u02bcinfortune des vers chalda\u00efques dans l\u02bcAntiquit\u00e9 tardive et jusqu\u02bcau XVIIe si\u00e8cle, en d\u00e9gageant d\u02bcautre part les perspectives d\u02bcune nouvelle \u00e9dition des Oracles. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/w8DvrIrkCyncwcE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":357,"pubplace":"Heidelberg","publisher":"Winter","series":"Bibliotheca Chaldaica","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u03a6\u03ac\u03bf\u03c2 et \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2. Le fragment 51 (v. 3) des Places (p. 28 Kroll) des Oracles Chalda\u00efques selon Proclus et Simplicius (Corollarium de loco)"]}
Title | κ und Nikephoros Chumnos |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2001 |
Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
Pages | 182-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1200,"authors_free":[{"id":1772,"entry_id":1200,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos","main_title":{"title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1200,"section_of":10,"pages":"182-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"]}
Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 151-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"]}