{"_index":"sire","_id":"1587","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1587,"authors_free":[{"id":2786,"entry_id":1587,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Thomas Seissl","free_first_name":"Thomas","free_last_name":"Seissl","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s \u201cNow\u201d and the Definition of Time: Method and Exegesis in Simplicius\u2019 Interpretation of Physics IV.10","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s \u201cNow\u201d and the Definition of Time: Method and Exegesis in Simplicius\u2019 Interpretation of Physics IV.10"},"abstract":"Physics IV.10 (217b30\u2013218a30) is pivotal in Aristotle\u2019s discussion of time, preceding his own account from IV.11 onward. Aristotle presents three puzzles about the existence of time with reference to the \u201cNow\u201d. Modern interpretations often view this section as an aporetic prelude with Aristotle\u2019s failure to provide explicit solutions. This paper examines Simplicius\u2019 alternative interpretation, which draws upon the theory of proof and the syllogistic model from the Posterior Analytics. Simplicius contends that the arguments\u2019 failure lies in their inability to fit within the suitable syllogistic framework to establish a demonstrable definition of time, not in their aporetic nature. Every science has to prove the relation between (i) establishing whether X exists and (ii) showing what X is by establishing what the cause of X is. In evaluating Simplicius\u2019 interpretation, this paper addresses two key aspects of the exegesis of IV.10: firstly, Simplicius can show why the \u201cNow\u201d is not part of the definition of time, and secondly, the ancient commentator underscores the close connection between the arguments in Physics IV.10 and the broader context of Aristotle\u2019s discussion of time. Modern interpreters fail to address both of these issues. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2024","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mOkF4fvV0VKbyeR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1587,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis ","volume":"26","issue":"2","pages":"366-386"}},"sort":[2024]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1588","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1588,"authors_free":[{"id":2787,"entry_id":1588,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Roberto Granieri","free_first_name":"Roberto","free_last_name":"Granieri","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato\u2019s Conception of Not-Being","main_title":{"title":"Not-Being, Contradiction and Difference. Simplicius vs. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Plato\u2019s Conception of Not-Being"},"abstract":"In explicating a passage from Physics A 3, Simplicius reports a criticism by Alexander of Aphrodisias against Plato\u2019s conception of not-being in the Sophist. Alexander deems this conception contradictory, because it posits that unqualified not-being is. Simplicius defends Plato and gives a diagnosis of what he regards as Alexander\u2019s interpretative mistake in raising his objection. I unpack this debate and bring out ways in which it sheds light on important aspects of Plato\u2019s project in the Sophist and of Simplicius\u2019 own philosophical background, notably in Damascius\u2019 De principiis. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kxUtLJkrkZD05av","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1588,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"185-200"}},"sort":[2023]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1599","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1599,"authors_free":[{"id":2799,"entry_id":1599,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Giuseppe Nastasi","free_first_name":"Giuseppe","free_last_name":" Nastasi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio","main_title":{"title":"Stoici e Peripatetici su agire, patire e movimento: la testimonianza di Simplicio"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories contains the most extended testimony about the Stoic conception of acting (\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) and undergoing (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd). Simplicius ascribed to the Stoics the idea that acting and undergoing are to be reduced to the movement. To this opinion Simplicius opposed the Aristotelian view according to which acting and undergoing are two different categories. In this paper I intend to outline the original Stoic position comparing the reportage of Simplicius with other Stoic sources. Later, I will deal with Boethus\u2019 defense of the distinction between the categories of acting and undergoing. I will argue that Boethus directly reacted against the Stoic opinion reformulating it in Aristotelian language. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2023","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8cin65Qpb0Uymcj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1599,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos: Rivista di Studi Sul Pensiero Antico ","volume":"44","issue":"2","pages":"333-365"}},"sort":[2023]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1555","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1555,"authors_free":[{"id":2718,"entry_id":1555,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kr\u00e4mer, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Kr\u00e4mer","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)","main_title":{"title":"Wenn der Steuermann ruft...\" (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7)"},"abstract":"Die vorliegende Betrachtung hat eine Interpretation angeboten, die sich eng an den Wortlaut von Kapitel 7 des Encheiridion h\u00e4lt. Demnach beschreibt Epiktet in der Tat zwei verschiedene Lebenssituationen zweier Menschen (oder desselben Menschen in unterschiedlichen Lebensphasen).\r\n\r\nIm ersten Fall thematisiert Epiktet die schicksalsbedingte Ver\u00e4nderung der Peristasen, der man entweder freiwillig oder unter Zwang Folge leisten kann. Im zweiten Fall k\u00fcndigt der Ruf des Steuermanns den bevorstehenden Tod an.\r\n\r\nDas verbindende Element der Lebensbeschreibungen ist die stoische Spannungslehre. Der tugendhafte Mensch richtet sich in allen Situationen und bei allen Entscheidungen auf Gott aus und erh\u00f6ht so den Tonos seines seelischen Pneumas.\r\n\r\nIm zweiten Fall spricht Epiktet aus seiner eigenen pers\u00f6nlichen Religiosit\u00e4t heraus psychagogisch wirksam die pers\u00f6nliche Religiosit\u00e4t des Lesers an. Wer den seelischen Tonos und die aufmerksame Ausrichtung auf Gott auch im fortgeschrittenen Alter bewahrt, wird den Tod \u2013 f\u00fcr eine gewisse Zeit \u2013 \u00fcberdauern und eine Gemeinschaft mit Gott erleben.\r\n[conclusion p. 120-121]","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zHBaqqHklM9rLNZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1555,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hyperboreus","volume":"28","issue":"1","pages":"111-122"}},"sort":[2022]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/F0bFT161R2MXdut","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":[2021]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1583","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1583,"authors_free":[{"id":2778,"entry_id":1583,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Manfred Kraus","free_first_name":"Manfred","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. ","main_title":{"title":"Book Review: Ivan A. Licciardi (2017). Critica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente. Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel Commentario al de Caelo di Aristotele, Saggio introduttivo, raccolta dei testi, traduzione e commentario (Symbolon 44). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag. "},"abstract":"\u00c8 fuori d \u2019ogni dubbio che i commentari di Simplicio alla Fisica e al De Caelo di\r\nAristotele siano d\u2019importanza primaria per la nostra conoscenza della filosofia\r\ndi Parmenide, come anche \u2013ed anzitutto \u2013per la trasmissione di una gran\r\nparte dei frammenti. Nell\u2019anno 2016 Ivan Licciardi ha pubblicato il suo libro\r\nintitolato Parmenide tr\u00e0dito, Parmenide trad\u00ecto, in cui ha dedicato la sua\r\nanalisi al commentario alla Fisica. Solo un anno dopo, Licciardi ha completato\r\nquesto primo studio con un altro libro, anch\u2019esso con un titolo provocante: \r\nCritica dell\u2019apparente e critica apparente, dedicato al commentario al De Caelo.\r\nAmbedue i libri sono strettamente legati l\u2019uno all\u2019altro. Nella premessa,\r\nl\u2019Autore dice che quando ha pubblicato il primo libro aveva gi\u00e0 raccolto quasi \r\ntutti i materiali per il secondo. Ha deciso, tuttavia, di pubblicarli in due volumi\r\nseparati, da un lato per ragioni di quantit\u00e0 (perch\u00e9 un solo libro avrebbe\r\nsuperato le mille pagine), ma anche per una ragione scientifica sostanziale, e\r\ncio\u00e8 perch\u00e9 nei due commentari, secondo Licciardi, Simplicio contempla il\r\npensiero parmenideo da prospettive diverse. Mentre nel commentario alla\r\nFisica l\u2019interpretazione \u00e8 incentrata sul rapporto fra l\u2019essere e l\u2019uno, nell\u2019altro\r\ncommentario, invece, il Commentatore si occupa del rapporto fra essere sen-\r\nsibile ed essere intelligibile e quindi del problema della generazione e del\r\ndivenire. [Introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xCZ6vrIKvYZF5PU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1583,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"41","issue":"1","pages":"201-207"}},"sort":[2020]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1467","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1467,"authors_free":[{"id":2540,"entry_id":1467,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":539,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Miller, Dana R.","free_first_name":"Dana R.","free_last_name":"Miller","norm_person":{"id":539,"first_name":"Dana R.","last_name":"Miller","full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/128406704","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"This paper gives a brief discussion of the problem of ascribing authorship to ancient philosophical texts when there is evidence both for and against traditional ascription. The case in point is tradition\u2019s claim that Simplicius is the author of the De Anima commentary. It is argued here that, while Gabor provides new and important methodological evidence for Simplicius\u2019s authorship, we should not expect certainty. It is suggested that, in cases where historical fact may never be ascertained, we will be better served by the notion of credences. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/3xAEvu1rDgjfUMU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":539,"full_name":"Miller, Dana R.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1467,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy","volume":"35","issue":"2","pages":"23-27"}},"sort":[2020]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1541","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1541,"authors_free":[{"id":2691,"entry_id":1541,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mouzala, Melina G. ","free_first_name":"Melina G.","free_last_name":"Mouzala","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3"},"abstract":"At the beginning of his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics II.2, Simplicius attempts to reveal the principal meaning of physis, that which in his view is preeminent above all others presented by Aristotle in Physics II.1. Through the arguments he uses to show what the principal meaning of physis is, we are also able to better understand the other meanings. These other meanings are, on the one hand, those which are discovered in the light of Simplicius\u2019 insightful reading of it. Simplicius appears to recognize\u2014or at least to be conscious of the fact\u2014that this part of his Commentary constitutes an autonomous analysis and explanation of the different meanings of physis, which sets out to reveal its concealed principal meaning.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this paper is to show that in his comments on Physics II.1, Simplicius is trying to offer an exegesis of the Aristotelian arguments, while in his comments regarding the beginning of Physics II.2, he proceeds to a bold reading of what Aristotle has said in chapter one. He does this by giving his own interpretation of the meaning of physis, within the frame which Aristotle had already sketched out in the previous chapter, but also by deviating to some extent from Aristotle. For Simplicius, the principal, albeit concealed, meaning of physis, within the Aristotelian philosophical framework, lies in the idea that nature is a sort of propensity for being moved and a sort of life, to wit, the lowest sort of life (eschat\u00ea z\u00f4\u00ea). [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BnCCI5k1m32XM47","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1541,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Analogia","volume":"7","issue":"Byzantine Aristotle","pages":"43-82"}},"sort":[2019]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QBnyRLAL62sCzX0","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/duFoYG09YhVIWUx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1403","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1403,"authors_free":[{"id":2188,"entry_id":1403,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":380,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","free_first_name":"V\u00e1clav","free_last_name":"N\u011bmec","norm_person":{"id":380,"first_name":"V\u00e1clav","last_name":"N\u011bmec","full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121953627X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Zum Problem der Gattung des Seienden bei Marius Victorinus und im antiken Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"The article is concerned with the problem of the genus of being in Neoplatonism. Specifically, it focuses on Pierre Hadot\u2019s hypothesis, according to which some Neoplatonic authors, such as Porphyry, and under his influence Marius Victorinus and Dexippus, presupposed a common genus of being or substance in the Aristotelian sense, encompassing various ontological levels of the Platonic universe, namely the intelligible and sensible being or substance.\r\n\r\nA comprehensive analysis of relevant texts of Neoplatonic interpreters of and commentators on Aristotle\u2019s writings shows that Hadot\u2019s hypothesis is not tenable. In fact, Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Porphyry and Dexippus to Simplicius presupposed one genus of intelligible substance, which is the source of being for every other substance, including the sensible substance. Nevertheless, the intelligible substance or being is the \"highest genus\" only in the sense of Plato\u2019s Sophist, and not in the sense of Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Accordingly, the relationship between the highest \"genus\" and other \"arts\" of substance is not regarded as one of synonymy but as one of homonymy. More precisely, this is not homonymy \"by chance\" but homonymy \"by intention,\" which can be specified as homonymy \"based on analogy,\" \"based on derivation from a single source,\" or \"based on relation to a single thing.\"\r\n\r\nMoreover, the author argues that the crucial passage from Victorinus\u2019s Against Arius Ib, which Hadot considered the main basis for his hypothesis, allows an alternative reading that is fully in accordance with the Neoplatonic doctrine as reconstructed in the article. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/1R6jT31lIQv4mO1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":380,"full_name":"N\u011bmec, V\u00e1clav","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1403,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie (Neue Folge)","volume":"160","issue":"","pages":"161-193"}},"sort":[2017]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"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}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"In Physics II 2, 193b35\u2013194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one.\r\n\r\nIn a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or \"form in itself,\" which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CX8My3vkHJrymmk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"387","_score":null,"_source":{"id":387,"authors_free":[{"id":506,"entry_id":387,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Relation between Quality and Qualified"},"abstract":"Simplicius claims in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categoriesthat quality is prior to the qualified according to nature. However, in an interesting passage in the same com\u00admentary, Simplicius describes the relation between quality and qualified in such a way that it strongly suggests an ontological simultaneity. The aim of this paper is to clarify Simplicius' notion of natural priority and to investigate the extent to which the as\u00adsumption of a natural priority of the quality over the qualified is compatible with the assumption of a co-existence of quality and qualified. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DTcssHAheWWZmpg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":387,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9thexis","volume":"28","issue":"","pages":"111-140"}},"sort":[2016]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1276","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1276,"authors_free":[{"id":1865,"entry_id":1276,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":53,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Coope, Ursula","free_first_name":"Ursula","free_last_name":"Coope","norm_person":{"id":53,"first_name":"Ursula","last_name":"Coope","full_name":"Coope, Ursula","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078072639","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics","main_title":{"title":"Rational Assent and Self-Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics"},"abstract":"In this paper, we have seen how ps.-Simplicius draws upon the Neoplatonic notion of self-reversion to explain the nature of rational assent. I have argued that this account of assent provides a basis for explaining a fundamental difference between assenting and having impressions: the fact that we can assent for a reason but cannot (in the same sense) have an impression for a reason.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius' account thus suggests an interesting new view of the nature of assent, a view that combines elements of Aristotelian, Stoic, and Neoplatonist thought. From the Stoics, he inherits the view that believing involves assenting. He draws upon the Neoplatonist notion of self-reversion to explain the essentially self-reflexive nature of assent. This enables him to defend Aristotle's claim that we cannot believe at will.\r\n\r\nOn this account, though we do not believe at will, we nevertheless have a kind of rational control over our beliefs: beliefs, by their very nature, are such as to be revised or maintained for reasons.\r\n\r\nThis account thus provides an answer to the question we raised for the Stoics: what is it about the nature of assent that explains why you are responsible for assenting in a way in which you are not responsible for having impressions?\r\n\r\nYou are responsible for assenting just because you can assent (or withhold assent) for reasons, and you can assent for reasons just because of the essentially self-reflexive nature of the act of assent.\r\n[conclusion p. 286]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EAq0q2QllqJrF4y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":53,"full_name":"Coope, Ursula","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1276,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"50","issue":"","pages":"237-288"}},"sort":[2016]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1014","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1014,"authors_free":[{"id":1530,"entry_id":1014,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":173,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","free_first_name":"Antony","free_last_name":"Hatzistavrou","norm_person":{"id":173,"first_name":"Antony","last_name":"Hatzistavrou","full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share","main_title":{"title":"Book review: Simplicius on Aristotle Physics 8.1-5, written by Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, Michael Chase and Michael Share"},"abstract":"This is a fine addition to the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, which is under the general editorship of Richard Sorabji. The volume contains a translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the first five chapters of the eighth book of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. The translators are Michael Chase (who has been involved in the translation of most of the chapters), Istvan Bodn\u00e1r, and Michael Slate. The translation is accompanied by a series of notes. Some of the notes identify the ancient texts Simplicius refers to in his commentary, while others are primarily of philological interest. There is also a number of exegetical notes that are particularly useful in helping the reader understand the logic of Simplicius\u2019 arguments and in elucidating the conceptual apparatus of his commentary. The volume also includes:\r\n\r\n A preface by Richard Sorabji, which explains the importance of the commentary for scholarship on the ancient commentators on Aristotle.\r\n An introduction by Michael Chase, which focuses on Simplicius\u2019 polemic against Philoponus.\r\n A list of departures of the translation from Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary.\r\n An English-Greek glossary.\r\n A Greek-English index.\r\n A subject index.\r\n A bibliography.\r\n\r\nThe volume is clearly designed with the needs of the specialist scholar in mind and aims to become the primary reference text in English for the study of Simplicius\u2019 commentary.\r\n\r\nWhere does the importance of Simplicius\u2019 commentary lie? It is instructive that both Sorabji, in his preface, and Chase, in his introduction, focus on its importance for the history of philosophy in late antiquity. First, it sheds light on an aspect of the philosophical and ideological debate between pagan and Christian thinkers at the end of antiquity concerning the intelligibility of the creation of the world. In Physics 8.1, Aristotle argues that time and motion are eternal. For any arbitrarily chosen moment in time or motion in space, one will always be able to identify a preceding and a subsequent moment or motion. This means that the world as a whole is eternal. Philoponus understood Aristotle\u2019s arguments for the eternity of the universe to pose problems for a creationist account of the world, as advocated by the Judeo-Christian religion. In his polemic Against Aristotle On the Eternity of the World, Philoponus undertakes the task of defending a creationist account of the world by attacking Aristotle\u2019s arguments for the eternity of motion and time.\r\n\r\nIn his commentary, Simplicius attacks Philoponus, accusing him, among other things, of failing to understand and thus misrepresenting Aristotle\u2019s position. A primary aim of his commentary on Physics 8.1 is, on the one hand, to identify and correct what he takes to be Philoponus\u2019 distortions of Aristotle\u2019s arguments and, on the other hand, to vindicate the cogency of Aristotle\u2019s theory against Philoponus\u2019 polemic. Simplicius makes no attempt to conceal his disdain for Philoponus\u2019 scholarly abilities and intellectual integrity, describing his arguments as \"garbage\" and accusing him of being motivated by his \"zeal for contradicting.\" In his introduction, Michael Chase clarifies that Simplicius\u2019 attack is not restricted to issues concerning the proper interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s theory but has a wider scope. It is meant as an attack on Philoponus\u2019 Christian faith. In this attack, Simplicius occasionally reveals himself to be conversant with intricate Christian theological debates, such as the debate concerning the nature of Christ (i.e., whether Christ was begotten or made).\r\n\r\nSecond, as Richard Sorabji mentions in his preface, Simplicius\u2019 commentary reports and makes extensive use of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 lost commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics. On Sorabji\u2019s view, Simplicius, on the whole, reports Alexander\u2019s views accurately. Furthermore, despite occasional disagreements about the interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Simplicius shows respect for Alexander\u2019s abilities as a commentator and values his intellectual integrity. Simplicius\u2019 attitude towards Alexander is thus sharply contrasted with his attitude towards Philoponus.\r\n\r\nScholars interested in the debate between pagan and Christian philosophers at the end of antiquity and in the history of the ancient commentators on Aristotle will welcome the translation into English of Simplicius\u2019 commentary. They may also find much material in the notes to the translation to grapple with. The volume will also appeal to anyone interested in Aristotle\u2019s natural philosophy and, more specifically, in Aristotle\u2019s views about the eternity of the world and the prime mover. The detailed English-Greek glossary and the indices make the volume a significant research tool likely to become a reference point in relevant scholarship. In addition, the volume is nicely produced. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/um5b6staCmgDtbZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":173,"full_name":"Hatzistavrou, Antony","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1014,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"9","issue":"1","pages":"124 \u2013125"}},"sort":[2015]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"407","_score":null,"_source":{"id":407,"authors_free":[{"id":545,"entry_id":407,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Predication","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Predication"},"abstract":"This paper deals with Simplicius\u2019 discussion of Aristotle\u2019s account of predication in his Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories. Of particular interest is the relation between synonymous predication and essential predication. In Aristotle, as well as in Simplicius, both kinds of predication are closely connected. It has been argued in Aristotelian scholarship that, for Aristotle, synonymous predication yields essential predication. It has been equally argued that this assumption is compatible with Aristotle\u2019s theoretical framework, but if applied to Plato, would pose a problem for Plato. Simplicius\u2019 extensive discussion of both synonymous predication and essential predication suggests that he was aware of the deeper problem raised by the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication. In this paper, I will argue that Simplicius, by means of an original interpretation of the predicate, not only turns the assumption that synonymous predication yields essential predication into a supposition that is less problematic for Plato, but also creates a framework for a possible harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yxvHetwfUgsPb6f","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":174,"full_name":"Hauer, Mareike","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":407,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de Philosophie Ancienne","volume":"33","issue":"2","pages":"173-200"}},"sort":[2015]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1310","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1310,"authors_free":[{"id":1936,"entry_id":1310,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":99,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chemi, Germana","free_first_name":"Germana","free_last_name":"Chemi","norm_person":{"id":99,"first_name":"Germana","last_name":"Chemi","full_name":"Chemi, Germana","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines","main_title":{"title":"Review of: I. Hadot, Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contemporaines"},"abstract":"L\u2019A. pr\u00e9sente en ce volume un bilan raisonn\u00e9 des recherches contemporaines concernant la vie et l\u2019\u0153uvre du n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius, ainsi que des \u00e9tudes sur sa r\u00e9ception dans le monde arabe. Le volume contient aussi deux contributions de Ph. Vallat portant respectivement sur la biographie de Simplicius (p. 102-129) et sur la r\u00e9ception arabe de son commentaire aux Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote (p. 241-264).\r\n\r\nLa premi\u00e8re section (Biographie, p. 13-134), qui fait suite \u00e0 la pr\u00e9face (p. 11-12), concerne la biographie de Simplicius. Cette partie du volume aborde les sujets suivants : le nom de Simplicius (p. 13-14), son origine et sa formation (p. 14-16), le milieu culturel d\u2019Alexandrie \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque de ses \u00e9tudes avec Ammonius (p. 16-17), le d\u00e9part d\u2019Ath\u00e8nes (p. 17-19), l\u2019exil en Perse (p. 23-24) et la question du lieu o\u00f9 Simplicius et ses coll\u00e8gues se seraient rendus apr\u00e8s avoir quitt\u00e9 la cour de Chosro\u00e8s Ier (p. 25-129). Cette section s\u2019ach\u00e8ve par un sommaire g\u00e9n\u00e9ral (p. 130-133) et trois \u00e9pigrammes que l\u2019A. attribue \u00e0 Simplicius (p. 133-134).\r\n\r\nLa deuxi\u00e8me section (Les \u0153uvres conserv\u00e9es sauf In Phys. et In De Caelo, p. 135-266) concerne les commentaires de Simplicius sur le Manuel d\u2019\u00c9pict\u00e8te (p. 148-181), sur le De Anima (p. 182-228) et sur les Cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote (p. 228-266). L\u2019A. introduit son analyse de ces trois ouvrages par un aper\u00e7u g\u00e9n\u00e9ral sur la datation des commentaires de Simplicius (p. 135-148) : conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la th\u00e8se d\u00e9j\u00e0 avanc\u00e9e dans ses travaux ant\u00e9rieurs, elle consid\u00e8re les commentaires de Simplicius comme ayant tous \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9crits apr\u00e8s l\u2019exil en Perse.\r\n\r\nLa troisi\u00e8me section (Les \u0153uvres partiellement ou enti\u00e8rement perdues, p. 267-283) a pour objet les textes suivants, que l\u2019A. attribue \u00e0 Simplicius : un commentaire aux \u00c9l\u00e9ments d\u2019Euclide, un commentaire sur le Ph\u00e9don (p. 267-269), un \u00e9pitom\u00e9 de la Physique de Th\u00e9ophraste (p. 269), un commentaire sur la M\u00e9taphysique d\u2019Aristote (p. 269-277), un commentaire sur La secte pythagoricienne de Jamblique (p. 277-278), un commentaire sur les M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques d\u2019Aristote (p. 279-280), un commentaire sur l\u2019Ars oratoria d\u2019Hermog\u00e8ne (p. 280-282) et un trait\u00e9 sur les syllogismes (p. 282).\r\n\r\nSuivent enfin un \u00c9pilogue (p. 285-288) et une bibliographie (p. 289-311).\r\n[introduction p. 385]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dB50Tmjq5TVAe1v","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":99,"full_name":"Chemi, Germana","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1310,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"385-388"}},"sort":[2015]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"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}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term \u00ab contamination \u00bb (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium\u2019s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts \u2013 not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule \u00ab the principle of collation \u00bb ; it can be formulated like this : \u00ab Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of \r\ncollation of at least two different manuscripts. \u00bb [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1139","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1139,"authors_free":[{"id":1713,"entry_id":1139,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":235,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","free_first_name":"Krzysztof","free_last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","norm_person":{"id":235,"first_name":"Krzysztof","last_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski","full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1155501799","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta","main_title":{"title":"Simplikios, czytelnik Epikteta"},"abstract":"Simplicius, the Neoplatonic philosopher, and commentator from late antiquity, devoted one of his commentaries to Epictetus\u2019 Enchiridion. In the article, the author posed the question about the place of the text by the Stoic writer within the whole Neoplatonic education system. In addition, he asked to what extent the act of commenting on Epictetus\u2019 work could be conceived by Simplicius as a kind of spiritual exercise. In the second part of the article, the hypothesis by M. Tardieu and I. Hadot is presented, suggesting that the city of Harran could be regarded as the possible place of exile where the group of philosophers settled after the Platonic Academy had been closed. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"Polish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VGw8HfmmOi2CqbW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":235,"full_name":"\u0141api\u0144ski, Krzysztof","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1139,"section_of":346,"pages":"35-43","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1139,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Przegl\u0105d Filozoficzno-Literacki","volume":"40","issue":"3-4","pages":"35-43"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"904","_score":null,"_source":{"id":904,"authors_free":[{"id":1335,"entry_id":904,"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}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen, H., Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This book is the first monograph in English (or any other language) devoted to the Late Platonic commentator Simplicius. Its focus is on Simplicius' methodology as a commentator. It deals at length with Simplicius' engagements with other ancient philosophers, from the earliest Presocratics, through the Peripatetic tradition (Theophrastus, Alexander), to contemporaries such as John Philoponus.\r\n\r\nWho was Simplicius? He was a Neoplatonist working in the first decades of the sixth century AD under whose name five commentaries have come down to us from antiquity. These commentaries are on Aristotle's Physics, Categories, De Caelo, and De Anima, and the Enchiridion of Epictetus, although his authorship of the commentary on the De Anima has been a subject of scholarly debate. In these often lengthy commentaries, Simplicius quotes from a wide range of philosophical texts where he thinks it relevant to his discussion of Aristotle's text and, in the process, preserves fragments from a number of otherwise lost works.\r\n\r\nSimplicius' chief claim to fame, then, is that he has become a vital source for our knowledge of Presocratic philosophy. Without Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics, our knowledge of early Greek philosophy would be significantly reduced.\r\n\r\nThis is the standard line. We should all be thankful to Simplicius for his habit of quoting texts in full rather than merely naming them in passing. We are thankful. But is there any more to him? Is Simplicius himself an interesting or significant philosopher? Is there anything more to him beyond his role as a doxographical source? Baltussen, in devoting a monograph to him, thinks there is, but he is conscious many will not share that view. Consequently, his book opens with an apologetic and slightly defensive introduction in which he tries to make the case for reading Simplicius as more than merely a quarry from which to extract quotations. Part of the task includes a defense of Late Platonism (Baltussen deliberately avoids the usual label \"Neoplatonism\"), to which Simplicius adhered. We are encouraged to put our reservations to one side and reassess Simplicius afresh.\r\n\r\nThe opening chapter introduces Simplicius' method and practice as a commentator. His commentaries differ from many other examples from late antiquity to the extent that they don't seem to be straightforward records of oral lectures taken \"from the voice of\" (apo ph\u00f4n\u00eas) the author. Instead, they are extended written works, conceived as textbooks for pagan teachers explicitly designed to preserve as much as possible of the pagan philosophical tradition\u2014hence the extensive quotations. In these often lengthy texts, Simplicius explicitly rejects originality, but Baltussen argues that we ought not to take this at face value and that these expressions of modesty are, in part, made out of respect for his teachers.\r\n\r\nThe second chapter deals with Simplicius' role as a source for the Presocratics. Baltussen welcomes Catherine Osborne's approach of reading fragments of the Presocratics within their doxographical context, as this adds to Simplicius' potential significance. What is important, of course, is to gain a sense of the motive and agenda of the doxographer. According to Baltussen, Simplicius' aim is to locate all of the Presocratics within a Late Platonic framework that emphasizes unity within the pagan philosophical tradition conceived as \"a single venerable and ancient message.\" This may be so up to a point, but to what extent would Simplicius welcome Democritus (or Epicurus) into this unified tradition? It would have been interesting to hear more about those thinkers who don't neatly fit within this syncretized history of philosophy, precisely because the points of disagreement might help to bring Simplicius' own position into sharper focus. Baltussen raises the question of whether Simplicius had access to the works of Presocratics directly or merely to collections of excerpts but doesn't draw any firm conclusions either way.\r\n\r\nThe third chapter turns to Simplicius' use of early Peripatetics such as Theophrastus and Eudemus. Baltussen argues that Simplicius took the early Peripatetics\u2014and especially Theophrastus\u2014very seriously in his exegeses of Aristotle because Theophrastus would have known Aristotle personally, giving his glosses an added authority. This is a departure from the attitudes of previous Platonic commentators on Aristotle. Although Simplicius shares the wider Late Platonic desire to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, there is also a strong desire to get Aristotle right, and no one is more likely to help in that task than Theophrastus. Baltussen suggests that we conceive Theophrastus himself as part of the Platonic commentary tradition, given his own comments on the Timaeus, but philosophical engagement with a previous author is not quite the same thing as commentary.\r\n\r\nThe Peripatetic theme continues in the fourth chapter, which is devoted to Alexander of Aphrodisias. Baltussen offers a detailed and slightly labored analysis of the motivations behind Simplicius' regular and extensive quotation from Alexander, but the question seems relatively straightforward. Why did Simplicius make use of Alexander's commentaries on Aristotle in his own commentaries on Aristotle? Because Alexander has lots of interesting things to say about Aristotle. The focus here again is on form rather than content, methodology rather than philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe fifth chapter examines the Platonic commentary tradition before Simplicius and discusses Simplicius' use of Plotinus and the Post-Plotinian tradition of harmonizing commentaries from Porphyry onwards. Simplicius' immediate teacher Ammonius is discussed briefly but deserves more attention. For instance, we were told in the opening chapter that Simplicius' rejection of originality was mere self-deprecation, but presumably that claim could be tested to some degree via a comparison between his own views and those of his teacher. The same goes for his later mentor Damascius.\r\n\r\nThe final chapter turns to the theme of polemic and focuses its attention on Simplicius' exchanges with his arch-rival John Philoponus, another Platonic commentator, but also a Christian. Baltussen prefaces his discussion with an account of the tensions and hostilities between Christians and pagans in late antiquity. Once again, Simplicius is presented as the defender of an embattled pagan philosophical tradition, taking Philoponus to task for his attacks against Proclus and Aristotle in De Aeternitate Mundi Contra Proclum. Baltussen highlights the rhetorical aspects of Simplicius' polemics rather than the content of the dispute, so once more methodology is the principal focus. The intensity of Simplicius' personal references to Philoponus (\"raving swine\") is contrasted with his sober and respectful references to Alexander.\r\n\r\nAn epilogue sums up the proceedings. One of the central themes to emerge from the book as a whole is the claim that, in order to understand what Simplicius is doing in his commentaries, we must take into account his commitment to pagan religion as well as philosophy. We should see the commentaries not merely as \"scholarly schoolbooks\" but rather as steps on a long road toward a more existential transformation. This religious dimension of Late Platonism should not be overlooked, Baltussen argues, if we want to understand properly what Simplicius is trying to achieve. The commentaries are his attempt to preserve the entire pagan philosophical and religious tradition within an increasingly hostile Christian world. On this final point, as well as a number of others, Baltussen sketches a broad context within which to think about what Simplicius is\r\ndoing but there is much less in the way of detailed analysis of what he actually did do, what he argued for, or what philosophical\r\npositions he himself held. This is in part simply a reflection of the sheer length of the commentaries themselves and no one could\r\noffer a detailed analysis of their contents within the covers of a single volume.\r\nI said at the outset that five commentaries have come down to us under the name of Simplicius. Baltussen discusses only three of\r\nthem. He puts to one side the De Anima commentary and he may well be right to do so, but it would have been nice to have seen a\r\nfuller discussion of the text and the question of its authorship.[2] He also more or less ignores the commentary on the Enchiridion of\r\nEpictetus. Although it does get the occasional mention (e.g. p. 43) Baltussen proceeds as if it doesn't exist, at one point writing 'all\r\nthree extant commentaries' (p. 34). In his interesting attempt to reconstruct 'the library of Simplicius' (pp. 211-15), neither\r\nEpictetus nor Arrian get a mention. This is a great shame for a number of reasons. The in Ench. is unique as the only surviving\r\ncommentary on a Stoic text to come down to us. Moreover, it is a commentary by a Late Platonist, and as a rule Late Platonists only\r\nwrote commentaries on Plato and Aristotle.[3] The way in which Late Platonists brought Aristotle into their curriculum is a\r\nwell-worn subject, but the desire to bring in a Stoic text is quite unusual. It complicates Simplicius' activity as a commentator in a\r\nnumber of interesting and significant ways. Presumably Baltussen would argue that this is part of Simplicius' desire to unite and\r\nthen preserve the entire pagan philosophical tradition in an increasingly hostile Christian world, but if that is the case then the in\r\nEnch. would form a potentially significant piece of evidence for Baltussen's thesis, one that has sadly been left out of the account. There is much in Baltussen's book that is of interest, but I'm not sure how far it goes in fleshing out a more rounded portrait of Simplicius. The focus of the volume throughout is squarely on Simplicius' use of other authors\u2014i.e., his quotations\u2014rather than Simplicius as an author or a philosopher in his own right. Baltussen consciously avoids discussing Simplicius qua philosopher on the basis that this has been done by others elsewhere. This is true to an extent, but what would be nice is a more synthetic volume that brings these discussions together in order to give us a complete picture. This book doesn't do that, although, to be fair, it doesn't ever claim to be trying to.\r\n\r\nWhat remains a desideratum, then, is a monograph that might combine Baltussen's methodological researches with an account of what is philosophically valuable in Simplicius. Most of my critical comments above have been asking for more discussion on various points, and no author can do everything in just one volume. I certainly hope that this book will encourage further work on Simplicius by both Baltussen and others that will help us to gain a fuller portrait of this still relatively neglected philosopher. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MiDP9FxKLHavo2S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":904,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews","volume":"","issue":"","pages":""}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1294","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1294,"authors_free":[{"id":1884,"entry_id":1294,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"},"abstract":"In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as \u201che who made the great Comment.\u201d But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by \u00e9migr\u00e9s from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy\u2014the so-called sectatores Simplicii.\r\n\r\nDespite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, \u201cSimplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima\u201d, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: \u201cAs no other scholar apparently shares Hadot\u2019s view, there is no need for further polemics\u201d (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius\u2019 circles, that it represents \u201can original and personal engagement with Aristotle\u2019s text\u201d (p. 4), and that the commentator \u201cuses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text\u201d (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: \u201cModern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts \u2018to set right\u2019 a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures\u201d (p. 7).\r\n\r\nThe manuscript basis of S.\u2019s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck\u2019s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: \u201cHayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina\u201d (p. 149). A concise list of S.\u2019s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume.\r\n\r\nS.\u2019s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6\u201313. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (\u201cThat also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...\u201d, p. 101). The volume\u2019s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius\u2019 Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists\u2019 appropriation and transmission of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius\u2019 text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages\u2014not the last paragraphs of Physics 4\u2014that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of \u201ctime\u201d to the \u201csoul.\u201d (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he\u2014like contemporary philosophers\u2014turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time\u2014and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity\u2014would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3.\r\n\r\nThere is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body\u2014sexuality, and so on\u2014in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that \u201cthe heart\u201d is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas \u201cif the object is pleasant, some other part\u201d is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius\u2019 gloss: \u201cThe heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (\u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd)\u201d (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle\u2019s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: \u201cThe intellect is not wholly master (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) of the movement of the living being\u201d (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine\u2019s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus\u2019 refusal of a disciple who was \u201cpursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2),\u201d as Damascius reports?\r\n\r\nThe early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Ps.-Simplicius\u2019 reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access\u2014in conscientious English and in full\u2014to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a \u201cPlatonic succession\u201d in Athens. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1294,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"594","_score":null,"_source":{"id":594,"authors_free":[{"id":845,"entry_id":594,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":117,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fleet, Barrie","free_first_name":"Barrie","free_last_name":"Fleet","norm_person":{"id":117,"first_name":"Barrie","last_name":"Fleet","full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172866235","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)","main_title":{"title":"\u2018Simplicius\u2019 (Review of: On Aristotle Physics 1.5-9, translated by Hans Baltussen, Michael Atkinson, Michael Share and Ian Mueller)"},"abstract":"At the outset of Physics 1, Aristotle states that systematic knowledge of natural things and their changing character derives from a group of \"principles (arkhai), causes (aitia), or elements (stoikheiai).\" In this first book, he does not formally distinguish between these three terms, focusing instead on principles, although later commentators went to great lengths to formalize distinctions among them. Books 1 and 2 of Physics are devoted to seeking out the principles of change within the realm of natural science. Aristotle begins with commonly accepted propositions, \u201cconstantly appealing to what is ordinarily said or thought\u201d (W. Charlton, Aristotle\u2019s Physics I, II, Oxford, 1970, xi).\r\n\r\nAristotle posits axiomatically that the principles of change in natural bodies are inherent in what comes into being from them, that they do not arise from one another or from external things, but that all things originate from these principles. He seeks to identify the rationally distinguishable factors inherent in the world of physical change. In chapters 1\u20134, he briefly reviews earlier theorists, such as Parmenides and Melissus, who posited a single principle and denied qualitative change, thereby placing themselves outside the scope of Aristotle\u2019s inquiry. Aristotle concludes that principles must be multiple, either finite or infinite in number.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonists, in general, prioritize Aristotle for questions of natural science and Plato for metaphysics. Book 1 of Physics straddles these two domains, and Simplicius, a 6th-century AD commentator, is eager throughout to demonstrate the harmony between Plato and Aristotle. Simplicius appeals particularly to Phaedo, Sophist, Philebus, Phaedrus, and Timaeus to suggest that many of Aristotle\u2019s ideas were anticipated by Plato.\r\n\r\nIn chapter 5, Aristotle asserts that everyone agrees the opposites (ta enantia) are principles, though there is considerable variation regarding what these opposites, as primary principles of physical change, are. Aristotle's approach differs from Plato\u2019s Argument from Opposites in Phaedo. He reduces physical change to an underlying matter and, rather than a pair of opposites, considers the presence or absence of an opposite. The absence is redefined as \"privation\" (ster\u00easis) of a form, with a possible critique of John Philoponus\u2014though this is contested by Sorabji (Introduction, pp. 4\u20137). Simplicius provides a detailed analysis of Aristotle\u2019s arguments, distinguishing between primary and secondary principles, substance and contraries, per accidens and per se, and potential and actual\u2014though M. suggests (n. 16) that at least once \u201cSimplicius has no clue.\u201d\r\n\r\nSimplicius draws parallels between Aristotelian matter and Plato\u2019s Receptacle in Timaeus and the great-and-small in Philebus. He defines matter explicitly at 230,22 and finds congruence between Plato and Aristotle regarding the distinction between the first form, which is genuinely separate, and the natural form immanent in individual compound objects, which perishes with the compound.\r\n\r\nSimplicius uses Aristotle\u2019s discussion of privation in chapters 7\u20139 to defend Plato against the charge of giving undue credence to Parmenides' unitary concept of Being. He extensively quotes Sophist to show that Plato recognized but did not emphasize privation, opting instead to discuss the presence or absence of form. Where Aristotle uses privation, Plato prefers the concept of \"the other.\" Simplicius concludes that Plato and Aristotle are not in conflict regarding principles: Plato sought the per se causes of being that are elemental and inherent, while Aristotle sought causes of change, including privation as a per accidens cause.\r\n\r\nSimplicius frequently cites other commentators, especially Alexander of Aphrodisias, offering a dense and complex analysis that illuminates not only Aristotle\u2019s text but also its reception by a Neoplatonist of the 6th century AD.\r\n\r\nThis edition, translated by four contributors with glossaries by Sebastian Gertz and editorial notes by Richard Sorabji, provides accurate and fluent translations with minimal errors, despite being a collective effort. However, a more detailed note on logos, often left untranslated, would be valuable. Note 252 on p. 155 repeats paragraph 3 of the Introduction (p. 11). Overall, this translation is a significant contribution to Aristotelian studies. [The entire review p. 113-114]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqkDsZcyl8kNw0V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":117,"full_name":"Fleet, Barrie","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":594,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"8","issue":"1","pages":"113-114"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"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":2378,"entry_id":1321,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1485","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1485,"authors_free":[{"id":2570,"entry_id":1485,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":2,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Militello, Chiara","free_first_name":"Chiara","free_last_name":"Militello","norm_person":{"id":2,"first_name":"Chiara ","last_name":"Militello ","full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13666461X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories"},"abstract":"This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle\u2019s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David (Elias) are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle\u2019s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)\u2019s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius\u2019, Simplicius\u2019 and Olympiodorus\u2019 doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle\u2019s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David (Elias) do not. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/62qOZqwQ9rtCf7S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":2,"full_name":"Militello, Chiara ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1485,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"PEITHO \/ EXAMINA ANTIQUA","volume":"1","issue":"5","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1510","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1510,"authors_free":[{"id":2623,"entry_id":1510,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentaries and Platonism"},"abstract":"All students of the history of philosophy are apt to be seduced by linearity. What I mean is this. Naturally, we read the texts of the history of philosophy in the chronological order in which they were written. So, for example, we read Aristotle after we read Plato. And we read the supposedly later works of Plato after the earlier ones. Perfectly reasonable. But in pursuing the task of trying to figure out the meaning of what we have read, we tend to seek out or suppose the \u201cinfluence\u201d of the earlier philosopher on the later or the \u201cdevelopment\u201d of the philosopher\u2019s views.\r\n\r\nThe employment of these two seemingly innocuous and certainly ubiquitous terms is in fact rarely edifying. An easy means of seeing why this is so is to ask what sort of Aristotelian cause influence and development are supposed to indicate. Since we are talking about temporal succession, presumably we would have in mind efficient or moving causes. But it only requires a moment\u2019s reflection to realize that the views of one philosopher never stand in relation to the views of another as efficient cause to effect.\r\n\r\nThus, for example, it is not because Plato believed that nominalism is false that Aristotle believed that nominalism is false, even if it is indeed the case that Aristotle accepted Platonic arguments to this effect. If, however, we loosen the connection between Plato and Aristotle and agree that the views of the former did not cause the views of the latter, what is the influence supposed to amount to? Indeed, why claim that Aristotle is influenced by Plato, with whom he happened to agree on many issues, and not by, say, Democritus, with whom he happened to disagree? Surely, one can be inspired to embrace a position that is exactly the opposite of that which one hears from another.\r\n\r\nConsider \u201cdevelopment.\u201d The perfectly anodyne sense of this term\u2014namely, that according to which the sequence of writings in an author indicates the progress or course of his thought\u2014is quite useless. But as soon as you try to gin up this weak sense of development into something more portentous, you get into serious trouble. If, for example, you say that Plato\u2019s thought developed in the sense that his later dialogues represent an advancement in, or even a change from, his earlier thought\u2014apart from cases of outright contradiction of which there are few or none\u2014you have to specify what the development is a development of; that is, to use Aristotelian terminology once again, what is the underlying substrate for the development? But this underlying substrate will be the locus of continuity throughout the putative development; continuity that may be far more important than any change.\r\n\r\nI am not suggesting that Plato or any other philosopher never changed his mind. I am suggesting that the changes cannot ever be viewed uncritically as going from false to true or wrong to right. Consider someone who believes that the high point of Plato\u2019s thinking occurred in the early or middle dialogues. Someone like this would not consider the middle or late dialogues developments in any sense but the anodyne one mentioned above. Some scholars, looking at the identical texts, believe that Aristotle developed from a Platonist to something like an anti-Platonist, while others believe that his anti-Platonism was only a \u201cphase\u201d after which he developed into a Platonist once again. None of this is very helpful.\r\n\r\nThe reason I bring it up is that the Platonists of late antiquity who introduced the philosophical curriculum wherein the commentaries played such an important role were mostly impervious to the siren song of linearity. As we know from the accounts of the philosophical curriculum, perhaps introduced by Iamblichus or Porphyry in the late third century, students were obliged to study Aristotle before studying Plato. Studying Aristotle, or at least some of the works of Aristotle, was thought to be the most suitable preparation for studying Plato.\r\n\r\nThe reason for this is quite simple: the Platonists were aiming at truth rather than what we might like to think of as an \u201cobjective and unbiased\u201d account of the \u201cdevelopment\u201d of the history of philosophy. But we still should want to ask why the study of Aristotle was supposed to be conducive to understanding the truth as it is revealed in Plato and articulated by the man whom Proclus called \u201cthe exegete of the Platonic revelation,\u201d namely, Plotinus.\r\n\r\nSimplicius provides a preliminary answer to this question when he says in his Physics commentary that Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world as Plato was for the intelligible world. Beginning the study of philosophy \u201cin\u201d the sensible world, in accord with Aristotle\u2019s remark in Physics\u2014that we start with things more intelligible to us and move to things more intelligible by nature\u2014puts the student in a better position to appreciate the more difficult insights found in the two works that comprise the culmination of philosophical study: namely, Timaeus and Parmenides.\r\n\r\nLet us be quite specific. The study of Categories is supposed to assist the student in preparing for the study of the intelligible world. Initially, this seems far-fetched. Indeed, it is not uncommon for contemporary Aristotle scholars to take Categories as in a way programmatic for an anti-Platonic Aristotelian philosophy, the focus of which is the individual sensible substance. So, on this showing, Iamblichus was naive to think that he was molding disciples of Platonism by having the students read Categories even before they encountered a dialogue of Plato.\r\n\r\nAs I have argued elsewhere, Iamblichus and Simplicius and many other prominent Platonists of late antiquity believed that Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was in harmony with Platonism. The way I characterized harmony was to argue that Aristotle\u2019s philosophy stood to Platonism analogous to the way that Newtonian mechanics stood to quantum mechanics. I was and am not altogether happy with letting my argument rest on an analogy in part because, in trying to explore further the details of harmony, one soon runs up against the limitations of the analogy.\r\n\r\nInstead, I would like to pursue a different approach here. I would like to argue that what underlies the claims of harmony is a set of shared principles; shared not only by self-proclaimed Platonists and by Aristotle, but by virtually all philosophers from at least 200 CE until perhaps the beginning of the seventeenth century, with only a few notable exceptions. It will become clear as I proceed why I have cast my net so widely. And I hope it will also become clear why the Aristotelian commentary tradition remains a critical component in the larger Platonic project. [introduction p. 7-9]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fH9zEC1gXGTy5tA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1510,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"2","issue":"4","pages":"7-23"}},"sort":[2014]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"810","_score":null,"_source":{"id":810,"authors_free":[{"id":1200,"entry_id":810,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":500,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Rescigno","norm_person":{"id":500,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Rescigno","full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un commentario alessandrino al \u00abDe caelo\u00bb di Aristotele","main_title":{"title":"Un commentario alessandrino al \u00abDe caelo\u00bb di Aristotele"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"Italian","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IR153pEdP84QTiX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":500,"full_name":"Rescigno, Andrea","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":810,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Athenaeum: Studi di letteratura e Storia dell'antichit\u00e0","volume":"101","issue":"2","pages":"479-516"}},"sort":[2013]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1094","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1094,"authors_free":[{"id":1652,"entry_id":1094,"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}}],"entry_title":"Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements","main_title":{"title":"Mathematical Explanation and the Philosphy of Nature in Late Ancient Philosophy: Astronomy and the Theory of the Elements"},"abstract":"Late ancient Platonists discuss two theories in which geometric entities explain natural \r\nphenomena : the regular polyhedra of geometric atomism and the eccentrics and epicycles \r\nof astronomy. Simplicius explicitly compares the status of the first to the hypotheses of the astronomers. The point of comparison is the fallibility of both theories, not the (lack of) reality \r\nof the entities postulated. Simplicius has strong realist commitments as far as astronomy is concerned. Syrianus and Proclus too do not consider the polyhedra as devoid of physical reality. Proclus rejects epicycles and eccentrics, but accepts the reality of material homocentric spheres, moved by their own souls. The spheres move the astral objects contained in them, which, however, add motions caused by their own souls. The epicyclical and eccntric hypotheses are useful, as they help us to understand the complex motions resulting from the interplay of spherical motions and volitional motions of the planets. Yet astral souls do not think in accordance with human theoretical constructs, but rather grasp the complex patterns of their motions directly. Our understanding of astronomy depends upon our own cognition of intelligible patterns and their mathematical images. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/NrliupadtaqUhIR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1094,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"23","issue":"","pages":"65-106"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1152","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1152,"authors_free":[{"id":1727,"entry_id":1152,"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}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on Tekmeriodic Proofs"},"abstract":"In this study I examine the sole detailed evidence we have for Simplicius\u2019 view of sign-based, i.e. tekmeriodic proofs, thereby questing the widespread assumption that he espouses Phiioponus' account of these proofs. Specifically. I argue that (1) it is more plausible to understand the signs on which Simplicius bases his tekmeriodic proofs as refutable, (2) he grounds the epistemic worth of these proofs in the evidential strength of their premises rather than in their validity, (3) unlike Phiioponus, he conceives of the argu\u00adment that leads to the principles of natural philosophy, which tekmeriodic proofs are aimed to prove, as inductive, and (4) he evaluates these proofs against Plato\u2019s un-hypothetical science, hence denying natural philosophy the autonomy from metaphysics that Phiioponus\u2019 account of tekmeriodic proofs grants. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kTidRDQtummkQxv","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1152,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"366-375"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"623","_score":null,"_source":{"id":623,"authors_free":[{"id":879,"entry_id":623,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":71,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Drews, Friedemann","free_first_name":"Friedemann","free_last_name":"Drews","norm_person":{"id":71,"first_name":"Friedemann","last_name":"Drews","full_name":"Drews, Friedemann","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142475742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik","main_title":{"title":"Intelligibles = Sinnliches? Simplikios' differenzierter Umgang mit Aristoteles' Parmenides-Kritik"},"abstract":"Simplikios nimmt Parmenides sowohl vor dem potentiellen Vorwurf, er w\u00fcrde nicht hinreichend zwischen Intelligiblem und Sinnlichem unterscheiden, in Schutz als auch integriert er Aristoteles' Kritik im Sinne einer potentiellen Missverst\u00e4ndnissen vor beugenden Vorsichtsma\u00dfnahme in seine neuplatonische Parmeni des-Interpretation und weist ihr so einen berechtigten Platz zu. Simplikios' Gr\u00fcnde daf\u00fcr erscheinen vor dem Hintergrund seines neuplatonischen Denkens plausibel. Ob seine Parmenides-Interpretation als solche dem Eleaten gerecht wird, ist eine andere Frage; zumindest w\u00fcrde Simplikios gegen\u00fcber einer Deutung des parmenideischen Seins-Begriffs in dem Sinne, dass \u201ejeder Gegenstand, den wir untersuchen, existieren mu\u00df\", wohl einwenden wollen, dass dies einer Reduktion von Parmenides' \u03c4\u03bf \u03ad\u03cc\u03bd auf ein abstraktes Erkenntniskriterium gleichk\u00e4me, dessen eigene, nur f\u00fcr das \u03bd\u03bf\u03b5\u0390\u03bd erkennbare Seinsf\u00fclle dann aus dem Blick geraten w\u00e4re. Auch erschiene es in dieser Perspektive fraglich, warum zum Erschlie\u00dfen eines allgemeinen Existenz-Postulats ein Weg \u201efernab der Menschen\" eingeschlagen werden musste oder gar eine g\u00f6ttliche Offenbarung des \u201eunersch\u00fctterlichen Herzens der wohl\u00fcberzeugenden Wahrheit\", von der Parmenides schreibt, n\u00f6tig war. [conclusion, p. 410-411]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ICo5GC7IUBJgLkS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":71,"full_name":"Drews, Friedemann","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":623,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"155","issue":"3\/4","pages":"389-412"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"826","_score":null,"_source":{"id":826,"authors_free":[{"id":1227,"entry_id":826,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":529,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bailey, Dominic","free_first_name":"Dominic","free_last_name":"Bailey","norm_person":{"id":529,"first_name":"Dominic","last_name":"Bailey","full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Megaric Metaphysics","main_title":{"title":"Megaric Metaphysics"},"abstract":"I have attempted to show that, with some imaginative reconstruction, there is a good deal more to Megaricism than meets the eye. While the position is doubtless false, there are nevertheless reasons for being sympathetic to its conjuncts, especially if one has, as some philosophers still do, a fetish for the actual and a perplexity about the indefinite, whether the indefiniteness of the modal or that of the non-particular. I have shown how anti-Platonism about common nouns of the kind evinced by Stilpo makes M2 seem better considered than at first. And I have shown how skepticism about possibility without actuality, from which later logicians such as Diodorus and Philo felt they could not stray too far (see Bobzien 1993, 1998), makes M1 seem better considered than at first.\r\n\r\nMoreover, I have demonstrated the impressive coherence of Megaricism, insofar as its conjuncts, as I interpret them, are both mutually entailing and, each in their ways, both Parmenidean and Protagorean. Megaricism is wrong, but sufficiently intriguing and well-integrated to make it worthy of serious consideration. [conclusion p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YNcy1URcz4PUK83","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":529,"full_name":"Bailey, Dominic","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":826,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Ancient philosophy","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"303-321"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"937","_score":null,"_source":{"id":937,"authors_free":[{"id":1390,"entry_id":937,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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}}],"entry_title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12","main_title":{"title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12"},"abstract":"Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justif\u0133ication for the study of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus\u2019 reasons for endorsing Porphyry\u2019s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry\u2019s. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FkVb1TMzAG6AZ5E","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":937,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"173-185"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1465","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1465,"authors_free":[{"id":2538,"entry_id":1465,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134","main_title":{"title":"Review of Huby, Taylor 2011: Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 1.3\u20134"},"abstract":"Thanks to the Ancient Commentators project, almost all of Simplicius' commentaries are now translated. This volume completes the gigantic On Aristotle's Physics. Within this monument, Book 1 must be the most read by scholars today because Aristotle's criticism of several physical theories leads Simplicius to multiply quotations of his forerunners and to preserve for his contemporaries (as well as for us) much Presocratic material (by Simplicius' time much of this had already become very rare: see In Phys. 144.25-9 on Parmenides).\r\nIn Chapter 1.3, Aristotle discusses the unity of Being he ascribes to the Eleatic philosophers. Simplicius comments abundantly. Citing Theophrastus, Alexander, and Porphyry, he reproduces the 'Eleatic syllogism,' which affirms Being and excludes not-Being, so as to prove Parmenides' thesis that Being is one and to assert, via Plato's Sophist, that Parmenides recognizes the existence of not-Being. Moreover, he assigns this reading to Aristotle himself, considering his criticism as an expression of later conceptual and linguistic refinements.\r\nIn Chapter 1.4, Aristotle discusses Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Empedocles. Here again, Simplicius contributes to the debate by his numerous quotations and by his analysis of rival commentators (Theophrastus, Alexander, Porphyry, and Nicolaus of Damascus). He considers how Anaxagoras and Empedocles can say that their principles are both one and many. Then, confronted with Aristotle's criticism of homoiomeria and nous, he gives a non-physical reading of Anaxagoras' account, explaining that it talks figuratively about a level of reality exceeding our mental capacities. In other words, in both these chapters, he attempts to reconcile Aristotle's physics with Presocratic philosophy so as to build a coherent system from the whole pagan tradition.\r\nThis volume could be said to consist of two books. Each translation is due to a different author; there are two introductions, two translations, and two selections of notes, and only the index and bibliography are in common. There are only minor differences in the style of the translations, but greater ones occur elsewhere. I shall discuss them separately.\r\nAs to H.'s introduction, two things must be noted. First, she contributes to the fierce debate by proposing a stimulating hypothesis about the place where such a large commentary could have been written: discrepancies, sometimes substantial, occurring in Simplicius' treatment of his sources are the result of his having written in various places. However, they could also be explained by the difficulty at that time of keeping every useful book constantly at hand: scholars were often compelled to write from memory. Second, H. summarizes the treatment Simplicius gives of Melissus and Parmenides, moving abruptly from one episode to the other. She perfectly communicates the sometimes confusing character of Simplicius' text. Her notes provide useful documentation rather than an explanatory commentary: she mentions parallels and justifies her translation but avoids going into detail about the philosophical issues.\r\nT. opts to draw a clear map of the text, insisting on its structure and summing up its main arguments. Moreover, most of the references are given within the translation (in brackets), while end-notes (fewer but longer) are devoted to explaining the contents of and issues in Simplicius' commentary (i.e., his reading of the Presocratic fragments).\r\nThe translation is remarkably successful in rendering the stylistic variations in Simplicius' text, which constantly moves from paraphrase to quotation or philosophical commentary. The Greek text largely follows H. Diels' edition (1882), sometimes as emended by later editors of the Presocratic fragments (DK inter alios).\r\nNow for some points of detail. In this Neoplatonic context, H. first suggests translating noeros as 'thinker' (and related words), 'because neither \"mental\" nor \"intellectual\" have the grammatical flexibility required' (p. 100 on In Phys. 143.18-19). Nevertheless, a little further on (p. 57 = In Phys. 147.26) she translates en tois noerois as 'in the mental area.' Another point concerns T.'s translation of Anaxagoras' vovs as 'Mind' (pp. 81-4). My intention here is not to contest this translation for interpreting Anaxagoras but to remind the reader that Simplicius must have connected this concept with his Neoplatonic vocabulary so that 'Intellect' seems a better translation. Otherwise, it becomes very problematic to translate the following: kai diakekritai oun kai h\u00ean\u00f4tai kata Anaxagoran ta eid\u00ea kai amph\u00f4 dia ton noun echei. T. writes: 'In Anaxagoras' view, the kinds owe both their separation and their unity to Mind' (p. 84 = In Phys. 176.31-2); but it is difficult to exclude the likelihood that Simplicius, with his Neoplatonic background, was reading these words with reference to Intellect and Forms.\r\nH. translates to on hen men esti, polla de ouk estin as 'Being is one and not many' (p. 37 = In Phys. 126.8). Since Simplicius has just referred to the Sophist and next opposes Being to rest and motion, it would be preferable to translate as 'is not many things.' Further (p. 46 = In Phys. 135.24), H. emends a quotation from the Sophist, turning tou ontos into tou m\u00ea ontos, following Plato's manuscripts. However, the text given by Simplicius makes sense and ought not to be altered (see my Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste (2007), pp. 140-1).\r\nOne could wonder why both authors have chosen, as is often done in this collection, to give the full lemmas from Aristotle's Physics, while Simplicius' manuscripts and Diels' edition give only a shortened version (i.e., 'from ... to ...'). Although it is risky to translate a text that possibly was not the one read by Simplicius, the decision should at least have been made explicit.\r\nFinally, the bibliography. On Simplicius, H. and T. refer only to two recent books: H. Baltussen, Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius (2008), and P. Golitsis, Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote (2008). The remainder of the short bibliography concerns the Presocratics and Aristotle. One would expect at least to find reference to a book and a paper written by A. Stevens: Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l'\u00catre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide (1989) and 'La Physique d'Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius,' RBPh (1989), 65-74. They provide commentaries on and (partial) translations of the chapters studied here.\r\nWith its English-Greek glossary, Greek-English index, subject index, and index of passages, this book is an extraordinarily useful tool for scholars. It provides an up-to-date translation of some of the richest pages about Presocratic philosophy. Now we can dream about a new edition of this commentary to replace the often misleading version of Diels.\r\n[author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fltNdJ3NAIOLUAG","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1465,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"62","issue":"2","pages":"465-467"}},"sort":[2012]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"443","_score":null,"_source":{"id":443,"authors_free":[{"id":595,"entry_id":443,"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}}],"entry_title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)","main_title":{"title":"Doctrine, Anecdote, and Action: Reconsidering the Social History of the Last Platonists (c. 430\u2013c. 550 C.E.)"},"abstract":"Two Parallel narratives have tended to dominate modern recon-\r\nstructions of the final century and a half of Platonism\u2019s long ancient \r\nhistory. The first ties the dramatic intersection of pagan-Christian \r\nconflict, imperial policy, and philosophical principles to the end of Platonic \r\nteaching in the Eastern Roman Empire. 1 A second, distinct narrative analyzes \r\nLatin philosophical writings and traces the gradual unraveling of the ties that \r\nbound Latin philosophical culture and its Greek counterpart. 2 Each of these \r\nnarratives has its own unique way of viewing and understanding Platonism. \r\nThe first story culminates with the emperor Justinian\u2019s closing of the Athe-\r\nnian Platonic school. It tends to present the affected philosophers as a small, \r\nisolated group of pagan intellectuals whose conflict with an increasingly as-\r\nsertive Christian political order pushed them to the empire\u2019s margins. The \r\nsecond narrative ends with Boethius and Cassiodorus and stresses how their \r\nphilosophical efforts both underlined Graeco-Latin philosophical separation \r\nand planted the seeds of medieval scholasticism. It sees Platonism primarily \r\nas a movement held together by scholastic practices and doctrinal continuities \r\nin which Latin writers participated only at some remove.\r\nThis paper proposes a different, more expansive way to think about late \r\nantique philosophical life. Ancient philosophical culture was not defined ex-\r\nclusively by religious concerns and doctrinal ties. Beginning with the Old \r\n\r\nAcademy of Xenocrates, Platonists shaped themselves into an intellectual \r\ncommunity held together by doctrinal commonalities, a shared history, and \r\ndefined personal relationships. 3 As the Hellenistic world developed and \r\nPlatonism spread beyond its Athenian center, doctrine, history, and social \r\nties stopped being conterminous. Platonists remained connected by a shared \r\nintellectual genealogy, but Platonism\u2019s social and doctrinal aspects became decentralized as individual schools with their own interests grew up in vari-\r\nous cities. 4 Although no direct institutional connection joined them to the \r\nAcademy, late antique Platonists saw themselves as part of an old philosophi-\r\ncal lineage that reached back to Plato. 5 In their schools, the history of an \r\nindividual circle\u2019s past mingled with that of the larger intellectual tradition it \r\nclaimed to have inherited. This amalgamated tradition was handed down from \r\nteachers to students in personal conversations that had a number of important, \r\ncommunity-building effects. They attracted students to Platonic philosophy, \r\nencouraged them to identify with the movement\u2019s past leaders, and influ-\r\nenced their ideas and actions once they joined a specific group. As this paper \r\nwill show, the Platonic circles that these men and women formed were then \r\ndefined as much by the relationships they formed and by the behaviors they \r\nexhibited as by the doctrines they espoused. [introduction p. 226-227]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rilfF7I9t8ywGlp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":357,"full_name":"Watts, Edward Jay","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":443,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Classical Philology","volume":"106","issue":"3","pages":"226-244"}},"sort":[2011]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1313,"authors_free":[{"id":1947,"entry_id":1313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":125,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","free_first_name":"Marc-Antoine","free_last_name":"Gavray","norm_person":{"id":125,"first_name":"Marc-Antoine","last_name":"Gavray","full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1078511411","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Confronter les Id\u00e9es. Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius"},"abstract":"Dans ce lemme, Simplicius n\u2019emploie pas la m\u00e9thode \u00e0 laquelle il recourt habituellement pour concilier des doctrines. Entre Aristote et Platon, le probl\u00e8me ne provient pas d\u2019une diff\u00e9rence d'expression (lexis), derri\u00e8re laquelle le sens fondamental (nous) serait identique. Chacun ne parle pas d\u2019un probl\u00e8me semblable en des termes diff\u00e9rents, pas plus que chacun ne traite d\u2019une question diff\u00e9rente mais en recourant \u00e0 des termes similaires. Sans \u00eatre formul\u00e9e ici par Simplicius de fa\u00e7on explicite, la divergence appara\u00eet \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re lecture : lorsqu\u2019Aristote s\u2019en prend \u00e0 la doctrine des Id\u00e9es, il ne peut pas, d\u2019une certaine fa\u00e7on, viser le divin Platon, qui fut le premier \u00e0 la soutenir. D\u2019embl\u00e9e, Simplicius \u00e9lude le probl\u00e8me en redirigeant l\u2019attaque contre d\u2019autres adversaires. Concilier impose en effet de comprendre tout d\u2019abord la v\u00e9ritable cible de l\u2019objection, avant qu\u2019il devienne possible d\u2019en mesurer l\u2019apport \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard de la doctrine g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des Id\u00e9es.\r\n\r\nLa conciliation des doctrines au c\u0153ur de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Aristote suit un parcours pr\u00e9cis. Dans un premier temps, Simplicius propose une lecture litt\u00e9rale de la Physique, expliquant chacun des arguments contenus dans le lemme. Toutefois, de fa\u00e7on surprenante pour nous, il souligne une tournure qui va lui permettre de retourner la position d\u2019Aristote contre elle-m\u00eame : en faire non plus un adversaire de la th\u00e9orie des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es, mais l\u2019auteur d\u2019un crit\u00e8re de validit\u00e9 de la s\u00e9paration. Dans un deuxi\u00e8me temps, notre ex\u00e9g\u00e8te s\u2019emploie \u00e0 montrer la teneur authentiquement aristot\u00e9licienne de cette doctrine des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es. Il isole d\u2019abord les caract\u00e8res reconnus aux Id\u00e9es, avant de d\u00e9montrer qu\u2019ils sont admis au sein m\u00eame de la pens\u00e9e d\u2019Aristote. De plus, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que l\u2019enjeu de la tentative de conciliation consiste \u00e0 trouver chez Aristote la double caract\u00e9risation des Id\u00e9es que leur attribuent leurs partisans \u2013 \u00eatre \u00e0 la fois des causes et des mod\u00e8les semblables pour les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s naturelles \u2013, il r\u00e9pertorie les passages du corpus aristotelicum qui abondent dans ce sens, les combine et ins\u00e8re des \u00e9l\u00e9ments provenant de la tradition n\u00e9oplatonicienne. Enfin, il utilise la critique pour poser une limite claire au sein de la nature entre les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s qui admettent des Formes s\u00e9par\u00e9es et celles qui n\u2019en admettent pas.\r\n\r\nComme souvent chez Simplicius, l\u2019examen aboutit \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u2019un crit\u00e8re net et pr\u00e9cis. Il doit permettre ici de d\u00e9marquer l\u2019homonymie vulgaire des Id\u00e9es de l\u2019\u00e9ponymie l\u00e9gitime. La premi\u00e8re r\u00e9sulte d\u2019un d\u00e9pouillement de la forme en dehors de la mati\u00e8re, mais qui continue \u00e0 raisonner \u00e0 partir d\u2019ici-bas : elle cherche des Id\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9es pour des formes naturelles qui ne peuvent jamais \u00eatre compl\u00e8tement abstraites de la mati\u00e8re \u00e0 laquelle elles sont li\u00e9es. La seconde reconna\u00eet que certains noms sont propres aux compos\u00e9s ici-bas et, par cons\u00e9quent, ne correspondent \u00e0 aucune r\u00e9alit\u00e9 l\u00e0-bas. En revanche, elle pose des Id\u00e9es, \u00e0 la fois causes et mod\u00e8les des compos\u00e9s ici-bas, qui poss\u00e8dent une subsistance s\u00e9par\u00e9e.\r\n\r\nSi le travail ex\u00e9g\u00e9tique de Simplicius ne brille pas toujours par son g\u00e9nie philosophique, il s\u2019emploie \u00e0 chercher des solutions \u00e0 certains des probl\u00e8mes les plus complexes de la tradition platonicienne. Comme souvent, la solution qu\u2019il propose, en d\u00e9pit du bricolage doctrinal sur lequel elle se fonde, l\u00e8ve la difficult\u00e9 d\u2019une fa\u00e7on nette et pr\u00e9cise. Il offre une nouvelle fois aux commentateurs que nous sommes une le\u00e7on \u00e0 m\u00e9diter. [conclusion p. 159-160]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ihW4uaycr2RFg3O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":125,"full_name":"Gavray, Marc-Antoine","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u00c9tudes platoniciennes","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"145-160"}},"sort":[2011]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1511","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1511,"authors_free":[{"id":2624,"entry_id":1511,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Discussions on the Eternity of the world in Late Antiquity"},"abstract":"This article studies the debate between the Neoplatonist philosophers Simplicius and John Philoponus on the question of the eternity of the world. The first part consists in a historical introduction situating their debate within the context of the conflict between Christians and Pa- gan in the Byzantine Empire of the first half of the sixth century. Particular attention is paid to the attitudes of these two thinkers to Aristotle's attempted proofs of the eternity of motion and time in Physics 8.1. The second part traces the origins, structure and function of a particular argument used by Philoponus to argue for the world's creation within time. Philoponus takes advantage of a tension inherent in Aristotle's theory of motion, between his standard view that all motion and change is continuous and takes place in time, and his occasional admission that at least some kinds of motion and change are instantaneous. For Philoponus, God's creation of the world is precisely such an instantaneous change: it is not a motion on the part of the Creator, but is analo- gous to the activation of a state (hexis), which is timeless and implies no change on the part of the agent. The various transformations of this doctrine at the hands of Peripatetic, Neoplatonic, and Islamic commentators are studied (Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, al-Kindi, al-Farabi), as is Philoponus' use of it in his debate against Proclus. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ufpZP6w4wwJDnXs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1511,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"\u03a3\u03a7\u039f\u039b\u0397. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"5","issue":"2","pages":"111-173"}},"sort":[2011]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1071","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1071,"authors_free":[{"id":1625,"entry_id":1071,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":17,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","free_last_name":"Bredlow","norm_person":{"id":17,"first_name":"Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","last_name":"Bredlow","full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129940305","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides","main_title":{"title":"Cosmolog\u00eda, cosmogon\u00eda y teogon\u00eda en el poema de Parm\u00e9nides"},"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to offer a fresh reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 system of the physical world, duly distinguishing the cosmological, cosmogonic and theogonic moments of the theory, whose confusion has been a main source of misunderstanding in earlier interpretations. In particular, the system of wreaths or bands of B 12 and A 37 does not represent the present order of the universe, but the general structure of matter, as well as the initial stage of the cosmogony (section 1), as can be substantiated also from Simplicius\u2019 reading of the fragments (section 2). This distinction will allow a tentative reconstruction of Parmenides\u2019 cosmogony (section 3) and cosmology, whose most striking feature is the position of the fixed stars below the sun and the moon, paralleled in Anaximander and \u2013 as I will try to show \u2013 in the cosmology of the orphic Derveni Papyrus (section 4). [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"Spanish","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IstgO7KI8zaKM84","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":17,"full_name":"Bredlow, Luis-Andr\u00e9s ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1071,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Emerita: Revista de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica y Filolog\u00eda Clas\u00edca","volume":"78","issue":"2","pages":"275-297"}},"sort":[2010]}

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

{"_index":"sire","_id":"977","_score":null,"_source":{"id":977,"authors_free":[{"id":1476,"entry_id":977,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the \"Theaetetus\" (\"In Physica\" 17,38-18,23 Diels)"},"abstract":"Aristotle in Physics 1,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate \"cognition according to the definition and through the elements,\" and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to recon struct Simplicius' reading of \"Socrates' Dream,\" its place in the Theaetetus larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dEWYys9PQqr0WtF","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":977,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"55","issue":"3","pages":"255-270"}},"sort":[2010]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1593","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1593,"authors_free":[{"id":2793,"entry_id":1593,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zeev Perelmuter","free_first_name":"Zeev","free_last_name":"Perelmuter","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Nous and Two Kinds of Epist\u00eam\u00ea in Aristotle\u2019s Posterior Analytics","main_title":{"title":"Nous and Two Kinds of Epist\u00eam\u00ea in Aristotle\u2019s Posterior Analytics"},"abstract":"Aristotle in Physics I,1 says some strange-sounding things about how we come to know wholes and parts, universals and particulars. In explicating these, Simplicius distinguishes an initial rough cognition of a thing as a whole, an intermediate \u201ccognition according to the definition and through the elements,\u201d and a final cognition of how the thing's many elements are united: only this last is \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7. Simplicius refers to the Theaetetus for the point about what is needed for \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b7 and the ways that cognition according to the definition and through the elements falls short. By unpacking this reference I try to reconstruct Simplicius' reading of \u201cSocrates' Dream,\u201d its place in the Theaetetus ' larger argument, and its harmony with other Platonic and Aristotelian texts. But this reconstruction depends on undoing some catastrophic emendations in Diels's text of Simplicius. Diels's emendations arise from his assumptions about definitions and elements, in Socrates' Dream and elsewhere, and rethinking the Simplicius passage may help us rethink those assumptions. [author's abstract] ","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IHkwn4udUD0QWHq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1593,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis ","volume":"55","issue":"3","pages":"228-254"}},"sort":[2010]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"750","_score":null,"_source":{"id":750,"authors_free":[{"id":1115,"entry_id":750,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":83,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","norm_person":{"id":83,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Eunyoung Ju","full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits","main_title":{"title":"The Stoic Ontology of Geometrical Limits"},"abstract":"Scholars have long recognised the interest of the Stoics' thought on geometrical limits, both \r\nas a specific topic in their physics and within the context of the school's ontological \r\ntaxonomy. Unfortunately, insufficient textual evidence remains for us to reconstruct their \r\ndiscussion fully. The sources we do have on Stoic geometrical themes are highly polemical, \r\ntending to reveal a disagreement as to whether limit is to be understood as a mere concept, \r\nas a body or as an incorporeal. In my view, this disagreement held among the historical \r\nStoics, rather than simply reflecting a doxographical divergence in transmission. This \r\napparently Stoic disagreement has generated extensive debate, in which there is still no \r\nconsensus as to a standard Stoic doctrine of limit. The evidence is thin, and little of it refers \r\nin detail to specific texts, especially from the school's founders. But in its overall features the \r\nevidence suggests that Posidonius and Cleomedes differed from their Stoic precursors on \r\nthis topic. There are also grounds for believing that some degree of disagreement obtained \r\nbetween the early Stoics over the metaphysical status of shape. Assuming the Stoics did so \r\ndisagree, the principal question in the scholarship on Stoic ontology is whether there were \r\nactually positions that might be called \"standard\" within Stoicism on the topic of limit. In \r\nattempting to answer this question, my discussion initially sets out to illuminate certain \r\nfeatures of early Stoic thinking about limit, and then takes stock of the views offered by late \r\nStoics, notably Posidonius and Cleomedes. Attention to Stoic arguments suggests that the \r\nschool's founders developed two accounts of shape: on the one hand, as a thought-construct, \r\nand, on the other, as a body. In an attempt to resolve the crux bequeathed to them, the \r\nschool's successors suggested that limits are incorporeal. While the authorship of this last \r\nnotion cannot be securely identified on account of the absence of direct evidence, it may be \r\ntraced back to Posidonius, and it went on to have subsequent influence on Stoic thinking, \r\nnamely in Cleomedes' astronomy. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/H3kH3u3PbGnOPyE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":83,"full_name":"Eunyoung Ju, Anna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":750,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"54","issue":"4\/5","pages":"371-389"}},"sort":[2009]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"844","_score":null,"_source":{"id":844,"authors_free":[{"id":1248,"entry_id":844,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo","main_title":{"title":"Plotin und Simplikios \u00fcber die Kategorie des Wo"},"abstract":"Wir haben im vorhergehenden drei semantische Interpretationen von Lokativen \u2013 als Ortsbezeichnungen, als Bezeichnungen von einem in einem anderen und als Ausdr\u00fccke von Relationen \u2013 kennengelernt, mit denen Plotin in VI 1 [42] 14 gegen die aristotelische Annahme der Kategorie des Wo (\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd) argumentiert und die drei verschiedene Bestimmungen des Wo einschlie\u00dfen: als Ort (\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2), als eines in einem anderen (\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf \u1f10\u03bd \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u1ff3) und als Beziehung zu einem Ort (\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd).\r\n\r\nDabei hat sich unter anderem gezeigt:\r\n(i) Weder diese Interpretationen noch die auf ihnen beruhenden Argumente \u00fcberzeugen v\u00f6llig, und Simplikios' Verteidigung der aristotelischen Annahme der Kategorie des Wo ist weitgehend erfolgreich, weist jedoch mit der These, dass Lokative nicht-reziproke Relationen ausdr\u00fccken, eine Schwachstelle auf.\r\n(ii) Plotins drittes, auf der Interpretation von Lokativen als Ausdr\u00fccke von Relationen beruhendes Argument \u00fcberzeugt zwar letztlich nicht, weist jedoch auf ein ernsthaftes Problem f\u00fcr Aristoteles hin.\r\n(iii) Die in der antiken Philosophie weitverbreitete Auffassung, an einem Ort zu sein bedeute, von einem K\u00f6rper umfasst zu werden, gr\u00fcndet in einem bestimmten Verst\u00e4ndnis von Lokativen der Form \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9 (z. B. \u1f10\u03bd \u039b\u03cd\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd und \u1f10\u03bd \u1f08\u03ba\u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03af\u1fb3). Dies best\u00e4tigt die zu Beginn aufgestellte These, dass die semantische Analyse von Lokativen Konsequenzen hat f\u00fcr die Wahl der Antwort darauf, was es hei\u00dft, an einem Ort zu sein, und was es hei\u00dft, der Ort von etwas zu sein.\r\n[introduction p. 30-31]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/aD2ORfI4GVXZhsH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":844,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv f\u00fcr Begriffsgeschichte","volume":"51","issue":"","pages":"7-33"}},"sort":[2009]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","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}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":[2009]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1259,"authors_free":[{"id":1838,"entry_id":1259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":25,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chase, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Chase","norm_person":{"id":25,"first_name":"Michael ","last_name":"Chase","full_name":"Chase, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031917152","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?","main_title":{"title":"Albert le Grand sur la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques: Un t\u00e9moignage de l'influence de Simplicius par le biais des Arabes?"},"abstract":"Faisons donc le bilan de ce parcours qui nous a men\u00e9s du IVe si\u00e8cle av. J.-C. au Moyen \u00c2ge latin. L'argumentation pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par Albert dans son De quinque universalibus provient d'une ambiance intellectuelle qui baignait dans des influences de la philosophie arabe : al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b, al-Ghaz\u0101l\u012b, Averro\u00e8s, mais surtout Avicenne. Elle est marqu\u00e9e par l'utilisation du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires \u2014 point, ligne, surface, corps \u2014 \u00e0 partir du mouvement en flux g\u00e9n\u00e9rateur de chacun de ces \u00e9l\u00e9ments.\r\n\r\nOr, ce sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation g\u00e9om\u00e9trique joue un r\u00f4le assez important dans la pens\u00e9e d'Albert, qui l'attribue \u00e0 Platon. Cette attribution ne semble pas si farfelue que cela, m\u00eame si la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du flux du point semble provenir de Speusippe plut\u00f4t que de son oncle Platon. Il n'en reste pas moins que, du moins selon l'interpr\u00e9tation de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen, le sch\u00e9ma de d\u00e9rivation point\/nombre-ligne-surface-corps est d'une importance tout \u00e0 fait fondamentale pour l'ontologie \u00e9sot\u00e9rique de Platon.\r\n\r\nSans acc\u00e8s aux Dialogues de Platon, Albert le Grand finit donc, quelles qu'aient \u00e9t\u00e9 ses sources prochaines et lointaines pour les doctrines platoniciennes, par d\u00e9fendre une image de Platon qui correspond, dans une large mesure, \u00e0 celle de l'\u00c9cole de T\u00fcbingen.\r\n\r\nQuant \u00e0 la question de ses sources et de la voie de transmission de ces doctrines, Albert a pu trouver chez la plus importante d'entre elles \u2014 la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne \u2014 de quoi nourrir une r\u00e9flexion approfondie sur cette question de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques. Cependant, le commentaire d'Albert aux \u00c9l\u00e9ments d'Euclide montre qu'\u00e0 cette influence avicennienne est venue s'ajouter une autre, ind\u00e9pendante : la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, v\u00e9hicul\u00e9e par la traduction latine du commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b.\r\n\r\nQu'en est-il de la relation entre Simplicius et Avicenne ? Nous avons vu que certains \u00e9l\u00e9ments du sch\u00e9ma simplicien de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques se retrouvent d\u00e9j\u00e0 dans l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, autour de Ya\u1e25y\u0101 ibn \u2018Ad\u012b. G. Freudenthal, pour sa part, avait conclu de son \u00e9tude de la g\u00e9om\u00e9trie d'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b qu'\u00ab il est fort probable qu'al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b connaissait soit les ouvrages de Simplicius auxquels an-Nair\u012bz\u012b avait acc\u00e8s, soit seulement la br\u00e8ve citation [p. 2, 19-23 Curze] contenue dans le commentaire d'an-Nair\u012bz\u012b \u00bb.\r\n\r\nQuoi qu'il en soit, il semble difficile d'\u00e9viter la conclusion qu'Avicenne connaissait bien la doctrine g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de Simplicius, du moins telle que transmise par le commentaire d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, soit par l'interm\u00e9diaire de l'\u00c9cole de Bagdad, soit par ses lectures propres.\r\n\r\nDe Platon \u00e0 Speusippe, en passant par des sources hell\u00e9nistiques telles que Sextus Empiricus, la doctrine de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques a fini, au VIe si\u00e8cle apr. J.-C., par faire partie int\u00e9grante du bagage intellectuel des derniers n\u00e9oplatoniciens tels que Philopon et Simplicius.\r\n\r\nC'est, semble-t-il, la pens\u00e9e g\u00e9om\u00e9trique de ce dernier qui, traduite en arabe et pr\u00e9serv\u00e9e dans le commentaire euclidien d'al-Nair\u012bz\u012b, contribue \u00e0 former la pens\u00e9e d'Avicenne au premier quart du XIe si\u00e8cle, avant d'arriver, quelque deux si\u00e8cles plus tard, sous les yeux de ce lecteur omnivore qu'\u00e9tait Albert le Grand.\r\n\r\nPour expliquer cet itin\u00e9raire de la pens\u00e9e, il n'est sans doute pas n\u00e9cessaire de postuler que, comme le soutient Mme Hadot, Simplicius ait r\u00e9dig\u00e9 son Commentaire d'Euclide \u00e0 Harran. Mais rien n'exclut cette hypoth\u00e8se non plus, et quand on pense aux \u00e9l\u00e9ments de preuve rassembl\u00e9s par Mme Hadot et d'autres concernant l'importance du legs de l'\u00c9cole math\u00e9matique de Simplicius dans le monde arabe, on peut estimer que le cas du sch\u00e9ma de la d\u00e9rivation des formes g\u00e9om\u00e9triques \u00e0 partir du point ne fait qu'ajouter une brique de plus \u00e0 l'\u00e9difice des preuves t\u00e9moignant en faveur de l'hypoth\u00e8se de l'\u00ab \u00c9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne de Harran \u00bb. [conclusion p. 28-29]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mVjTC4EIjO2Aggg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":25,"full_name":"Chase, Michael ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"778","_score":null,"_source":{"id":778,"authors_free":[{"id":1142,"entry_id":778,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":180,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojtech ","free_first_name":"Vojtech","free_last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","norm_person":{"id":180,"first_name":"Vojt\u011bch","last_name":"Hladk\u00fd","full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f","main_title":{"title":"Empedokle\u016fv sfairos v pohledech antick\u00fdch interpret\u016f"},"abstract":"Tento text si klade za c\u00edl prozkoumat zp\u016fsob, jak\u00fdm recipuj\u00ed a reinterpretuj\u00ed Empedokleovu koncepci \u010di sp\u00ed\u0161e p\u0159edstavu Sfairu pozd\u011bj\u0161\u00ed anti\u010dt\u00ed auto\u0159i. Navazuje p\u0159itom na na\u0161i p\u0159edchoz\u00ed pr\u00e1ci, ve kter\u00e9 jsme se pokusili \u2013 p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm na z\u00e1klad\u011b text\u016f Empedoklea sam\u00e9ho \u2013 tento moment Empedokleova rozvrhu sv\u011bta rekonstruovat.\u00b2 V n\u011bm, jak zn\u00e1mo, \u010dty\u0159i z\u00e1kladn\u00ed a v\u011b\u010dn\u00e9 prvky-\u017eivly (ohe\u0148, vzduch, vodu, zemi) p\u0159etv\u00e1\u0159ej\u00ed, navz\u00e1jem slu\u010duj\u00ed a rozlu\u010duj\u00ed dv\u011b formuj\u00edc\u00ed s\u00edly \u2013 L\u00e1ska a Sv\u00e1r. P\u016fsoben\u00edm L\u00e1sky tak z p\u016fvodn\u011b jednoduch\u00fdch prvk\u016f vznikaj\u00ed vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed a slo\u017eit\u011bj\u0161\u00ed organismy a v\u016fbec v\u0161echny v\u011bci, naproti tomu p\u016fsoben\u00edm Sv\u00e1ru doch\u00e1z\u00ed k jejich rozkladu a n\u00e1vratu prvk\u016f do jejich p\u016fvodn\u00ed \u010dist\u00e9 podoby.\r\n\r\nPodle z\u00e1v\u011bru na\u0161eho p\u0159edchoz\u00edho \u010dl\u00e1nku je Sfairos, vznikl\u00fd v okam\u017eiku nejv\u011bt\u0161\u00edho vzep\u011bt\u00ed L\u00e1sky, ve skute\u010dnosti jak\u00fdsi obrovsk\u00fd organismus, zahrnuj\u00edc\u00ed do sebe v\u0161echny p\u0159edt\u00edm vznikl\u00e9 v\u011bci. Ty se dohromady spoj\u00ed bu\u010f tak, \u017ee doslova fyzicky srostou, \u010di p\u0159inejmen\u0161\u00edm dohromady vytvo\u0159\u00ed harmonick\u00fd sv\u011bt, v n\u011bm\u017e L\u00e1ska zaru\u010duje m\u00edrumilovn\u00e9 sou\u017eit\u00ed a soubyt\u00ed v\u0161eho, co p\u0159edt\u00edm ze z\u00e1kladn\u00edch prvk\u016f vytvo\u0159ila. Nav\u00edc je snad mo\u017en\u00e9 ztoto\u017enit Sfairos se \u201esvatou a nadlidskou mysl\u00ed (\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ac\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\u201c, o n\u00ed\u017e tento autor mluv\u00ed ve sv\u00e9m zlomku B 134.\r\n\r\nJsme si p\u0159itom v\u011bdomi, \u017ee tato interpretace Empedokleova Sfairu je dosti neobvykl\u00e1. Vzhledem k tomu, \u017ee se n\u00e1m b\u00e1se\u0148 velk\u00e9ho Akragant\u0165ana nezachovala v \u00faplnosti a jej\u00ed p\u0159esn\u00e9 filozofick\u00e9 sd\u011blen\u00ed bylo na mnoha m\u00edstech ne zcela jasn\u00e9 patrn\u011b ji\u017e pro antick\u00e9ho \u010dten\u00e1\u0159e, mus\u00edme se bohu\u017eel o mnoha aspektech nauky, kterou hl\u00e1s\u00e1, pouze dohadovat. V p\u0159edchoz\u00ed pr\u00e1ci jsme se pokusili rekonstruovat Sfairos na z\u00e1klad\u011b rozboru zachovan\u00e9ho Empedokleova textu dopln\u011bn\u00e9ho o starov\u011bk\u00e1 sv\u011bdectv\u00ed.\r\n\r\nSna\u017e\u00edme-li se nyn\u00ed prov\u00e9st rozbor v\u00fdklad\u016f Sfairu, kter\u00e9 pod\u00e1vaj\u00ed Empedokleovi filozofi\u010dt\u00ed n\u00e1sledovn\u00edci, \u010din\u00edme tak rovn\u011b\u017e proto, abychom na\u0161i pon\u011bkud nezvyklou interpretaci d\u00e1le nep\u0159\u00edmo podpo\u0159ili a z\u00e1rove\u0148 pouk\u00e1zali na vliv, jak\u00fd Empedokl\u00e9s \u2013 zejm\u00e9na pak v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b Plat\u00f3nov\u00fdch dialog\u016f T\u00edmaia, Politika a Symposia \u2013 mohl m\u00edt. Projdeme-li v detailu ohlasy Empedoklea u pozd\u011bj\u0161\u00edch autor\u016f, kter\u00e9 jsou mo\u017en\u00e1 n\u011bkdy pon\u011bkud p\u0159ekvapiv\u00e9, m\u016f\u017eeme si pak na konci na\u0161eho zkoum\u00e1n\u00ed znovu polo\u017eit ot\u00e1zku, zda by nemohly vrhnout nov\u00e9 sv\u011btlo na jeho bohu\u017eel jen velmi torzovit\u011b zachovan\u00e9 d\u00edlo. [introduction p. 379-381] \u00dcbersetzung: Dieser Text zielt darauf ab, die Art und Weise zu untersuchen, wie sp\u00e4tere antike Autoren Empedokles\u2019 Konzept oder eher die Vorstellung des Sphairos aufnehmen und reinterpretieren. Dabei kn\u00fcpft er an unsere vorherige Arbeit an, in der wir versucht haben \u2013 vor allem auf der Grundlage von Empedokles\u2019 eigenen Texten \u2013 diesen Aspekt von Empedokles\u2019 Weltentwurf zu rekonstruieren.\u00b2 Darin, wie bekannt, formen, verbinden und trennen sich die vier grundlegenden und ewigen Elemente (Feuer, Luft, Wasser, Erde) durch das Wirken von zwei gestaltenden Kr\u00e4ften \u2013 Liebe und Streit. Durch die Wirkung der Liebe entstehen aus den urspr\u00fcnglich einfachen Elementen h\u00f6here und komplexere Organismen und \u00fcberhaupt alle Dinge, w\u00e4hrend durch die Wirkung des Streits deren Zerfall und die R\u00fcckkehr der Elemente in ihre urspr\u00fcngliche reine Form erfolgt.\r\n\r\nLaut dem Schluss unserer vorherigen Arbeit ist der Sphairos, der im Moment des h\u00f6chsten Wirkens der Liebe entsteht, tats\u00e4chlich eine Art riesiger Organismus, der alle zuvor entstandenen Dinge in sich vereint. Diese verbinden sich entweder dadurch, dass sie buchst\u00e4blich physisch miteinander verschmelzen, oder zumindest gemeinsam eine harmonische Welt schaffen, in der die Liebe ein friedliches Zusammenleben und Mitsein all dessen garantiert, was zuvor aus den grundlegenden Elementen erschaffen wurde. Dar\u00fcber hinaus ist es vielleicht m\u00f6glich, den Sphairos mit dem \u201eheiligen und \u00fcbermenschlichen Geist (\u03c6\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd \u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ac\u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c6\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2)\u201c zu identifizieren, von dem dieser Autor in seinem Fragment B 134 spricht.\r\n\r\nWir sind uns dabei bewusst, dass diese Interpretation des Sphairos von Empedokles recht ungew\u00f6hnlich ist. Da das Gedicht des gro\u00dfen Akragantinischen Dichters nicht vollst\u00e4ndig erhalten ist und seine genaue philosophische Aussage wohl schon f\u00fcr die antiken Leser an vielen Stellen nicht v\u00f6llig klar war, m\u00fcssen wir uns leider in vielen Aspekten der Lehre, die er verk\u00fcndet, nur auf Vermutungen st\u00fctzen. In der vorherigen Arbeit haben wir versucht, den Sphairos auf der Grundlage der Analyse des erhaltenen Textes von Empedokles, erg\u00e4nzt durch antike Zeugnisse, zu rekonstruieren.\r\n\r\nWenn wir nun versuchen, die Auslegungen des Sphairos zu analysieren, die von den philosophischen Nachfolgern des Empedokles gegeben wurden, tun wir dies auch, um unsere etwas ungew\u00f6hnliche Interpretation indirekt weiter zu st\u00fctzen und zugleich auf den Einfluss hinzuweisen, den Empedokles \u2013 insbesondere im Fall der platonischen Dialoge Timaios, Politikos und Symposion \u2013 m\u00f6glicherweise hatte. Wenn wir die Rezeptionen von Empedokles bei sp\u00e4teren Autoren im Detail durchgehen, die manchmal vielleicht etwas \u00fcberraschend sind, k\u00f6nnen wir uns am Ende unserer Untersuchung erneut die Frage stellen, ob diese nicht ein neues Licht auf sein leider nur sehr fragmentarisch erhaltenes Werk werfen k\u00f6nnten.","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"Czech","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DoW1OJgnzqLFDXs","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":180,"full_name":"Hladk\u00fd, Vojt\u011bch","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":778,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Listy filologick\u00e9 \/ Folia philologica","volume":"131","issue":"3\/4","pages":"379-439"}},"sort":[2008]}