| Title | Wenn der Steuermann ruft..." (Epiktet, Encheiridion 7) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2022 |
| Journal | Hyperboreus |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 111-122 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Krämer, Benedikt |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CjtWoBp8Z2FqtLn |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CjtWoBp8Z2FqtLn","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]}
| Title | Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 210-241 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Tarrant, Harold |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century, and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius, changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal validity. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK","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]}
| Title | Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2021 |
| Journal | History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 122-139 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Harari, Orna |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius’ use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle’s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius’ assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle’s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle’s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mWf9pkyGLYXgUke |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1463","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1463,"authors_free":[{"id":2536,"entry_id":1463,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Logic and Interpretation: Syllogistic Reconstructions in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this article I explain three puzzling features of Simplicius\u2019 use of syllogistic reconstructions in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics: (1) Why does he reconstruct Aristotle\u2019s non-argumentative remarks? (2) Why does he identify the syllogistic figure of an argument but does not explicitly present its reconstruction? (3) Why in certain lemmata does he present several reconstructions of the same argument? Addressing these questions, I argue that these puzzling features are an expression of Simplicius\u2019 assumption that formal reasoning underlies Aristotle\u2019s prose, hence they reflect his attempt to capture as faithfully as possible Aristotle\u2019s actual mode of reasoning. I show further that, as a consequence of this seemingly descriptive use of syllogistic reconstructions, logic serves Simplicius not only as an expository and clarificatory tool of certain interpretations or philosophical views, but also motivates and shapes his exegetical stances and approach. [conclusion, p. 138]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mWf9pkyGLYXgUke","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":169,"full_name":"Harari Orna","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1463,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"122-139"}},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Simplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/s9FnHJ01Q1rEt0h","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Commentary on Gabor: The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 23-27 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Miller, Dana R. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| 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’s 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’s 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. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KRndYATfooFjPy6 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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. ","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KRndYATfooFjPy6","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]}
| Title | Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Elenchos |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 401-429 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwark, Marina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form ‘universal,’it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species–form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius’ commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating accidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual’s form coordinates the individual’s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter–form compound can assume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory of individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual’s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lyFogK56o18nE5W |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1377","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1377,"authors_free":[{"id":2121,"entry_id":1377,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on the Individuation of Material Substances"},"abstract":"In his commentary on Physics I 9, Simplicius claims that individual forms individuate matter. Given that in the same text he calls the immanent form \u2018universal,\u2019it seems reasonable to conclude that the individual forms are individual instances of one universal species\u2013form. However, Simplicius also mentions accidental properties that are peculiar to form rather than to matter. On the basis of Simplicius\u2019 commentaries on the Categories and on the Physics, I argue that the individuating\r\naccidents are not part of the individual forms, but that each individual\u2019s form coordinates the individual\u2019s accidental features. By belonging to a certain species, the individual form sets limits as to which accidents a matter\u2013form compound can\r\nassume. This approach enables Simplicius to combine hylomorphism with a theory\r\nof individuation through properties. Furthermore, in his commentary on De Caelo I 9 Simplicius explains the uniqueness of each individual\u2019s conglomeration of properties in light of his Neoplatonic cosmology: each individual corresponds to an individual cosmic disposition that determines its characteristic features. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lyFogK56o18nE5W","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1377,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Elenchos","volume":"40","issue":"2","pages":"401-429"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | Simplicius on the Principal Meaning of Physis in Aristotle's Physics II. 1-3 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Analogia |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | Byzantine Aristotle |
| Pages | 43-82 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mouzala, Melina G. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RTSyFVdFmVxRmDJ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"\r\n","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RTSyFVdFmVxRmDJ","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]}
| Title | Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due παρεκβάσεις in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31–8.15 e 28.32–37.9) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 2019 |
| Journal | Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-32 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Licciardi, Ivan Adriano |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1554","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1554,"authors_free":[{"id":2717,"entry_id":1554,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Licciardi, Ivan Adriano","free_first_name":"Ivan Adriano","free_last_name":"Licciardi","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)","main_title":{"title":"Sinfonia dei Presocratici. Su due \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03ba\u03b2\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 in Simplicio (in PHYS. 6.31\u20138.15 e 28.32\u201337.9)"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"2019","language":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1554,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Epekeina. International Journal of Ontology History and Critics","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"1-32"}},"sort":[2019]}
| Title | Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin’s Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 13-43 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Menn, Stephen |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius’ Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry’s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases building on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander’s and Porphyry’s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus’ interpretation of ‘in’ and ‘said of, which is based on Aristotle’s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of ‘said o f; (ii) Boethus’ use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how a universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic XeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus’ solution to the tension between Aristotle’s hylomorphism and the Categories’ account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the form is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it is nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus’ reading, connect it with Boethus’ accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus’ views help motivate Porphyry’s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/f40u6koKhn1exfj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1141","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1141,"authors_free":[{"id":1715,"entry_id":1141,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":255,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Menn, Stephen","free_first_name":"Stephen","free_last_name":"Menn","norm_person":{"id":255,"first_name":"Stephen","last_name":"Menn","full_name":"Menn, Stephen","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/174092768","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire","main_title":{"title":"Andronicus and Boethus: Reflections on Michael Griffin\u2019s Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the Early Roman Empire"},"abstract":"Griffin, Rashed, and Chiaradonna have shown how we can use Simplicius\u2019 Categories commentary to reconstruct much of Porphyry\u2019s greater Categories commentary (also witnessed by the Archimedes Palimpsest), and then use this to reconstruct much of the work of Boethus, and to a lesser extent Andronicus, on the Categories. In some cases \r\nbuilding on Griffin, in other cases disagreeing with him, I bring out some ways in which Andronicus and Boethus differ from most later interpreters; this can help us understand Alexander\u2019s and Porphyry\u2019s responses. I reconstruct (i) Andronicus\u2019 interpretation of \u2018in\u2019 and \u2018said of, which is based on Aristotle\u2019s distinction between abstract nouns and paronymous concrete nouns, and avoids the metaphysical freight that later interpreters load onto the notion of \u2018said o f; (ii) Boethus\u2019 use of De Interpretation 1 to explain how \r\na universal term can be synonymous without positing either universals in re or Stoic \r\nXeKid, and the consequences he draws for the different aims of the Categories and De Interpretation; and (iii) Boethus\u2019 solution to the tension between Aristotle\u2019s hylomorphism and the Categories\u2019 account of substance. Boethus, unlike later interpreters, thinks the \r\nform is in the matter, and is therefore not a substance but (typically) a quality, but that it \r\nis nonetheless able to constitute the composite as a substance distinct from the matter. I bring out the Aristotelian basis for Boethus\u2019 reading, connect it with Boethus\u2019 accounts of differentiae and of the soul, and show how Boethus\u2019 views help motivate Porphyry\u2019s responses. In some cases Porphyry constructs his views by triangulating between Boethus and Alexander. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/f40u6koKhn1exfj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":255,"full_name":"Menn, Stephen","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1141,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"13-43"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (μορφή) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 29 |
| Pages | 59 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Schwark, Marina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (μορφή) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius’ commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus’ assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus’ position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus’assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the ’constitution thesis with Iamblichus’theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of σύλληψισς. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (κοινὴ σύλληψις) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1144","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1144,"authors_free":[{"id":1717,"entry_id":1144,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":289,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schwark, Marina","free_first_name":"Marina","free_last_name":"Schwark","norm_person":{"id":289,"first_name":"Marina","last_name":"Schwark","full_name":"Schwark, Marina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75)"},"abstract":"The present article examines how Simplicius and Iamblichus conceive of the quality shape (\u03bc\u03bf\u03c1\u03c6\u1f75) and its relation to other qualities. As Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Categories 8 shows, Simplicius follows Iamblichus in almost all aspects of his analysis. In particular,Simplicius shares Iamblichus\u2019 assumption that shape is ultimately caused by intelligibleprinciples. Yet, Simplicius departs from Iamblichus\u2019 position by asserting that shape isconstituted by figure, color, and perhaps even other qualities. Iamblichus opposes thisview, presumably because he takes it to interfere with his own metaphysical explanationof shape. Simplicius, however, suggests that his claim is in accord with Iamblichus\u2019assumptions. In his attempt to harmonize the \u2019constitution thesis with Iamblichus\u2019theory of intelligible principles, Simplicius relies on the notion of \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c2. He argues that shape as a common conjunction (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c3\u1f7b\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2) includes, the other qualities inquestion, albeit as its parts or elements different from itself. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5tmWnuMYoq2efPf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":289,"full_name":"Schwark, Marina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1144,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"29","issue":"","pages":"59"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | “Creatio ex nihilo”: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Arabic Sciences and Philosophy |
| Volume | 22 |
| Pages | 91-117 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gleede, Benjamin |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato’s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle’s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-Fārābī in his exposition of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/643p7NfjbSkgI3O |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1416","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1416,"authors_free":[{"id":2217,"entry_id":1416,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":395,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","free_first_name":"Benjamin","free_last_name":"Gleede","norm_person":{"id":395,"first_name":"Benjamin","last_name":"Gleede","full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138770468","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages","main_title":{"title":" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"},"abstract":"The article aims at demonstrating that in attributing the creatio ex nihilo to both Plato and Aristotle as their unanimous philosophical conviction the Treatise on the Harmony between the Two Sages deeply depends upon the Neoplatonic reading of those two philosophers. The main obstacles for such a view in the works of the two sages are Plato\u2019s assumption of a precosmic chaos in the Timaeus and Aristotle\u2019s denial of any efficient causality to the unmoved mover in the Metaphysics. Both of these points had been, however, done away with by the Neoplatonist commentators already, especially by Ammonius in his lost treatise on efficient and final causality in Aristotle the use of which in the Harmony is shown by a comparison with Simplicius. Christian and Muslim readers just had to transfer those arguments and hermeneutical techniques into an anti-eternalist context in order to make the two philosophers agree with one of the basic tenents of their face, a hermeneutical technique considerably different from the one employed by al-F\u0101r\u0101b\u012b in his exposition of Plato\u2019s and Aristotle\u2019s philosophy which is compared to the Harmony in a briefly sketched concluding section.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/643p7NfjbSkgI3O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":395,"full_name":"Gleede, Benjamin","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1416,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"22","issue":"","pages":"91-117"}},"sort":[" \u201cCreatio ex nihilo\u201d: A genuinely philosophical insight derived from Plato and Aristotle? Some notes on the treatise on the Harmony between the two sages"]}
| Title | 'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff. |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1971 |
| Journal | The Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 91 |
| Pages | 138-139 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hall, J.J |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus’ authority, is that Anaximander ‘was the first to discuss’ the sizes and distances of ‘planets’, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and planômena in 471.2-6 is inconsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ZmTTpk12fUJCyWj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1342","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1342,"authors_free":[{"id":2000,"entry_id":1342,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":165,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hall, J.J","free_first_name":"J.J.","free_last_name":"Hall","norm_person":{"id":165,"first_name":"J.J","last_name":"Hall","full_name":"Hall, J. J","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.","main_title":{"title":"'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."},"abstract":"Thus all that Simplicius is saying, on Eudemus\u2019 \r\nauthority, is that Anaximander \u2018was the first to \r\ndiscuss\u2019 the sizes and distances of \u2018planets\u2019, using the latter term to include sun and moon; and this agrees with what the doxographers tell us: Anaximander had views about the distances of sun and moon, and the size of the sun.11 A sceptic, like Dicks, may question this whole tradition; but it should not be claimed that what Simplicius says of Anaximander and plan\u00f4mena in 471.2-6 is incon\u00adsistent with our other authorities. [conclusion, p. 139]","btype":3,"date":"1971","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ZmTTpk12fUJCyWj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":165,"full_name":"Hall, J. J","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1342,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"91","issue":"","pages":"138-139"}},"sort":["'Planets' in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff."]}
| Title | (Neo-) Platonica |
| Type | Article |
| Language | Dutch |
| Date | 1984 |
| Journal | Tijdschrift voor Filosofie |
| Volume | 46 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 319-330 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Steel, Carlos |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/dzbV4GL1fW12mo2 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"845","_score":null,"_source":{"id":845,"authors_free":[{"id":1249,"entry_id":845,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":14,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steel, Carlos","free_first_name":"Carlos","free_last_name":"Steel","norm_person":{"id":14,"first_name":"Carlos ","last_name":"Steel","full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122963083","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"(Neo-) Platonica","main_title":{"title":"(Neo-) Platonica"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1984","language":"Dutch","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dzbV4GL1fW12mo2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":14,"full_name":"Steel, Carlos ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":845,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Tijdschrift voor Filosofie","volume":"46","issue":"2","pages":"319-330"}},"sort":["(Neo-) Platonica"]}
| Title | 529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1978 |
| Journal | Byzantion |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 369–385 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Blumenthal, Henry J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues - whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91), Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the Emperor himself. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4u8Kej7b86VvpJj |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"876","_score":null,"_source":{"id":876,"authors_free":[{"id":1287,"entry_id":876,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":108,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","free_first_name":"Henry J.","free_last_name":"Blumenthal","norm_person":{"id":108,"first_name":"Henry J.","last_name":"Blumenthal","full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051543967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?","main_title":{"title":"529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, pp. 268 f.]: Proclus had once taken a year comparable circumstances (90), so that Damascius and his colleagues -\r\n whether or not they were the persons named by Agathias - could\r\n encourage themselves with the knowledge that philosophic activity in\r\n Athens had once before been resumed after a break. And then, for\r\n whatever reasons, the hope was not fulfilled. If this is right, then the\r\n year 529 must be allowed to retain its traditional significance. But not\r\n all of it. Greek philosophy, if not openly the Platonist kind, continued to\r\n be taught elsewhere and when, a century later, Heraclius called\r\n Stephanus to Constantinople to hold an official chair of philosophy (91),\r\n Neoplatonism was installed in the capital with the blessing of the\r\n Emperor himself.","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4u8Kej7b86VvpJj","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":108,"full_name":"Blumenthal, Henry J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":876,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantion","volume":"48","issue":"2","pages":"369\u2013385"}},"sort":["529 and its Sequel: What Happened to the Academy?"]}
| Title | A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1982 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 323-326 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Janko, Richard |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of comedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the definition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic. [introduction, p. 323] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YSTXmy5vkw3SXQC |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1359","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1359,"authors_free":[{"id":2035,"entry_id":1359,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":203,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Janko, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Janko","norm_person":{"id":203,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Janko","full_name":"Janko, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1013357299","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy"},"abstract":"An important fragment of the lost portion of Aristotle's Poetics is the definition of synonyms preserved by Simplicius,' which corresponds to Aristotle's own citation of the Poetics for synonyms in the Rhetoric, 3. 2. 1404b 37 ff. I shall argue elsewhere that this derives from a discussion of the sources of verbal humour in the lost account of \r\ncomedy and humour. Here it is my aim to show that Simplicius definitely derived the quotation from Porphyry, which pushes back the attestation of this part of the Poetics by more than two centuries (although the citation in the Antiatticist, Poet. fr. 4 Kassel, is older still). Furthermore, I shall show that some of the words in the \r\ndefinition are a gloss added by Porphyry for the purposes of his own polemic. [introduction, p. 323]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YSTXmy5vkw3SXQC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":203,"full_name":"Janko, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1359,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"32","issue":"2","pages":"323-326"}},"sort":["A Fragment of Aristotle's Poetics from Porphyry, concerning Synonymy"]}
| Title | A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1965 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Oriental Society |
| Volume | 85 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 318-327 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kraemer, Joel L. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In view of Philoponus' achievement, the loss of the Contra Aristotelem is, to say the least, regret- table. Fortunately, extracts from the work are preserved in the commentaries on the Physica and the De caelo of Philoponus' pagan philosophi- cal opponent, Simplicius, which provide a fair sampling of the drift of the argument.9 Also, there is reason to believe that the Contra Aristotelem was known to the medieval Arabs... [p. 320] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/GlgWKDL2kQWNuuf |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"735","_score":null,"_source":{"id":735,"authors_free":[{"id":1098,"entry_id":735,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":220,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","free_first_name":"Joel, L.","free_last_name":"Kraemer","norm_person":{"id":220,"first_name":"Joel L.","last_name":"Kraemer","full_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113182023","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation","main_title":{"title":"A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation"},"abstract":"In view of Philoponus' achievement, the loss of \r\nthe Contra Aristotelem is, to say the least, regret- \r\ntable. Fortunately, extracts from the work are \r\npreserved in the commentaries on the Physica \r\nand the De caelo of Philoponus' pagan philosophi- \r\ncal opponent, Simplicius, which provide a fair \r\nsampling of the drift of the argument.9 Also, there \r\nis reason to believe that the Contra Aristotelem \r\nwas known to the medieval Arabs... [p. 320]","btype":3,"date":"1965","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/GlgWKDL2kQWNuuf","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":220,"full_name":"Kraemer, Joel L.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":735,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the American Oriental Society","volume":"85","issue":"3","pages":"318-327"}},"sort":["A Lost Passage from Philoponus' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic Translation"]}
| Title | A New Fragment of Parmenides |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1935 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 122-123 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Cornford, Francis Macdonald |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The text discusses a disputed line in Parmenides, quoted in Plato's Theaetetus and Simplicius' Physics. Some editors deny the line's independent existence, claiming it was created by Plato by misquoting another verse. The author disagrees with this view, arguing that the line is meaningful and could have been in their texts of Parmenides. The author also argues that there is no reason to believe that Simplicius took the line from Plato, and that Plato was not slovenly in his treatment of Parmenides. The author proposes a corrected version of the line and suggests that it may be Parmenides' last word on the unity and unchangeableness of Being. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/22AiAGR3zgXhXHY |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1280","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1280,"authors_free":[{"id":1869,"entry_id":1280,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":55,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cornford, Francis Macdonald","free_first_name":"Francis Macdonald","free_last_name":"Cornford","norm_person":{"id":55,"first_name":"Francis Macdonald","last_name":"Cornford","full_name":"Cornford, Francis Macdonald","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118975056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A New Fragment of Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"A New Fragment of Parmenides"},"abstract":"The text discusses a disputed line in Parmenides, quoted in Plato's Theaetetus and Simplicius' Physics. Some editors deny the line's independent existence, claiming it was created by Plato by misquoting another verse. The author disagrees with this view, arguing that the line is meaningful and could have been in their texts of Parmenides. The author also argues that there is no reason to believe that Simplicius took the line from Plato, and that Plato was not slovenly in his treatment of Parmenides. The author proposes a corrected version of the line and suggests that it may be Parmenides' last word on the unity and unchangeableness of Being. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"1935","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/22AiAGR3zgXhXHY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":55,"full_name":"Cornford, Francis Macdonald","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1280,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"49","issue":"4","pages":"122-123"}},"sort":["A New Fragment of Parmenides"]}
| Title | A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2001 |
| Journal | Archive for History of Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 69-93 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Yavetz, Ido |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is shown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tJW5mbpQNJmMJhi |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"839","_score":null,"_source":{"id":839,"authors_free":[{"id":1243,"entry_id":839,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":366,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yavetz, Ido","free_first_name":"Ido","free_last_name":"Yavetz","norm_person":{"id":366,"first_name":" Ido","last_name":"Yavetz","full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156978416","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"The geometry of the alternative reconstruction of Eudoxan planetary theory is studied. It is \r\nshown that in this framework the hippopede acquires an analytical role, consolidating the theory's geometrical underpinnings. This removes the main point of incompatibility between the alternative reconstruction and Simplicius's account of Eudoxan planetary astronomy. The analysis also suggests a compass and straight-edge procedure for drawing a point by point outline of the retrograde loop created by any given arrangement of the three inner spheres. [Author\u2019s abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tJW5mbpQNJmMJhi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":839,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"56","issue":"1","pages":"69-93"}},"sort":["A New Role for the Hippopede of Eudoxus"]}
| Title | A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1960 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 4-5 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Wasserstein, Abraham |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/EbLIQIMvekyZoAZ |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"444","_score":null,"_source":{"id":444,"authors_free":[{"id":596,"entry_id":444,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":356,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","free_first_name":"Abraham","free_last_name":"Wasserstein","norm_person":{"id":356,"first_name":"Abraham","last_name":"Wasserstein","full_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119380102","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras","main_title":{"title":"A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras"},"abstract":"","btype":3,"date":"1960","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EbLIQIMvekyZoAZ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":356,"full_name":"Wasserstein, Abraham","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":444,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"10","issue":"1","pages":"4-5"}},"sort":["A Note on Fragment 12 of Anaxagoras"]}
| Title | A propos de la biographie de Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1991 |
| Journal | Revue philosophique de Louvain |
| Volume | 83 |
| Pages | 506-514 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Van Riet, Simone |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Known for his adherence to the Neoplatonic School of Athens, Simplicius represents the intellectual lineage that blended Plotinus' metaphysics with oriental mysteries and rites, tracing its roots back to the ancient Platonic Academy. His journey also intersects with the evolution of philosophy in Alexandria, known for its leanings towards natural studies and empirical sciences. However, unlike many of his contemporaries, Simplicius lacks a dedicated biographer, necessitating careful historical reconstruction of his life. A notable event in his life was the closure of the Neoplatonic School of Athens in 529, pushing Simplicius and others to Persia, only to face disappointment and eventual return due to a peace treaty. While his commentaries on Aristotle's treatises form the main body of his works, this study argues for a deeper recognition of Simplicius and his fellow Aristotelian commentators as distinctive thinkers in the history of philosophy, whose biographies merit thorough exploration. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/uWmjiQAf8C5V6v3 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"452","_score":null,"_source":{"id":452,"authors_free":[{"id":608,"entry_id":452,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":382,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Riet, Simone","free_first_name":"Simone","free_last_name":"Van Riet","norm_person":{"id":382,"first_name":"Simone","last_name":"Van Riet","full_name":"Van Riet, Simone","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525887","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A propos de la biographie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"A propos de la biographie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Known for his adherence to the Neoplatonic School of Athens, Simplicius represents the intellectual lineage that blended Plotinus' metaphysics with oriental mysteries and rites, tracing its roots back to the ancient Platonic Academy. His journey also intersects with the evolution of philosophy in Alexandria, known for its leanings towards natural studies and empirical sciences. However, unlike many of his contemporaries, Simplicius lacks a dedicated biographer, necessitating careful historical reconstruction of his life. A notable event in his life was the closure of the Neoplatonic School of Athens in 529, pushing Simplicius and others to Persia, only to face disappointment and eventual return due to a peace treaty. While his commentaries on Aristotle's treatises form the main body of his works, this study argues for a deeper recognition of Simplicius and his fellow Aristotelian commentators as distinctive thinkers in the history of philosophy, whose biographies merit thorough exploration. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/uWmjiQAf8C5V6v3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":382,"full_name":"Van Riet, Simone","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":452,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue philosophique de Louvain","volume":"83","issue":"","pages":"506-514"}},"sort":["A propos de la biographie de Simplicius"]}