Keywords
commentaries
dialectic
Neoplatonism
Topics
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s 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’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David (Elias)’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ 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’s 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.
References
AA.VV., 1910, Genethliakon. Carl Robert zum 8. März 1910, Berlin.
Arevšatyan, S., 1969, “Davit‘ Anhałt‘i žaṙangut‘yunĕ nor lusabanut‘yamb”, Banber Matenadarani 9, pp. 7–22.
Barbanti, M., Giardina,G. R., Manganaro P. (cur.), 2002, Enôsis kai philia. Unione e amicizia, Studi in onore di Francesco Romano, Catania.
Bird, O., 1962, “The Tradition of the Logical Topics: Aristotle to Ockham”, Journal of the History of Ideas 23, pp. 307–323.
Bodéüs, R., 2008, Porphyre. Commentaire aux Catégories d’Aristote, Paris.
Brunschwig, J., 1989, “Aristote de Stagire. L’Organon. Tradition grecque”, in: Goulet (1989), pp. 482–502.
Busse, A., 1887, Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, Berolini.
Busse, A., 1888, Dexippi in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, Berolini.
Busse, A., 1895, Ammonius. In Aristotelis Categorias commentarius, Berolini.
Busse, A., 1898, Philoponi (olim Ammonii) in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, Berolini.
Busse, A., 1900, Eliae in Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias commentaria, Berolini.
Busse, A., 1902, Olympiodori prolegomena et in Categorias commentarium, Berolini.
Calzolari, V., 2009, “David et la tradition arménienne”, in: Calzolari, Barnes (2009), pp. 15–36.
Calzolari, V., Barnes, J. (dir.), 2009, L’oeuvre de David l’Invincible et la transmission de la pensée grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriaque, Leiden and Boston.
Cardullo, R.L., 1986, “Syrianus’ Lost Commentaries on Aristotle”, Bullettin of the Institute of Classical Studies 33, pp. 112–124.
Cardullo, R.L., 1993, “Syrianus défenseur de Platon contre Aristote, selon le témoignage d’Asclepius (Métaphysique 433, 9–436, 6), in: Dixsaut (1993), pp. 197–214.
Cardullo, R.L., 1995, Siriano esegeta di Aristotele. I: Testimonianze e frammenti dei commentari all’Organon, Firenze.
Cardullo, R.L., 1997, “La “noerà theoria” di Giamblico come chiave di lettura delle Categorie di Aristotele. Alcuni esempi”, Syllecta Classica 8, pp. 79–94.
Cardullo, R.L., 2002, “Asclepio di Tralle: filosofo originale o mero redattore apò phônês?”, in: Barbanti, Giardina, Manganaro (2002), pp. 495–514.
Cardullo, R.L., 2012, Asclepio di Tralle. Commentario al libro Alpha meizon (A) della Metafisica di Aristotele, Acireale e Roma.
Chase, M., 2003, Simplicius. On Aristotle’s “Categories 1–4”, Ithaca.
Chiaradonna, R., Rashed, M., Sedley, D., 2013, “A Rediscovered Categories Commentary”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44, pp. 129–194.
Cohen, S.M., Matthews, G.B., 1991, Ammonius. On Aristotle’s Categories, Ithaca.
Dalsgaard Larsen, B., 1972, Jamblique de Chalcis. Exégète et philosophe. Appendice: testimonia et fragmenta exegetica, Aarhus.
Dillon, J., 1990, Dexippus. On Aristotle Categories, London.
Dixsaut, M. (dir.), 1993, Contre Platon. I: Le platonisme dévoilé, Paris.
Ebbesen, S., 1993, “The Theory of loci in Antiquity and the Middle Ages”, in: Jacobi (1993), pp. 15–39.
Evangeliou C., 1988, Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry, Leiden and New York and Københaven and Köln.
Fleet, B., 2002, Simplicius. On Aristotle Categories 7–8, London.
Fortenbaugh, W.W., Mirhady, D.C. (eds.), 1994, Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, New Brunswick.
Gaskin, R., 2000, Simplicius. On Aristotle Categories 9–15, London.
Goulet, R. (dir.), 1989, Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. I: Abam(m)on à Axiothéa, Paris.
Goulet, R., 2000, “Elias”, in: Goulet (2000a), pp. 57–66.
Goulet R. (ed.), 2000a, Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. III: D’Eccélos à Juvénal, Paris.
de Haas, F.A.J., 2001, “Simplicius. On Aristotle Categories 5”, in: de Haas, Fleet (2000), pp. 1–92.
de Haas, F.A.J., Fleet B., 2000, Simplicius. On Aristotle Categories 5–6, London.
Hadot, I., 1978, Le problème du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclès et Simplicius, Paris.
Hadot, I. (dir.),1987, Simplicius. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie. Actes du Colloque international de Paris (28 sept.–1er oct. 1985), Berlin et New York.
Hadot, I., 1990a, “Notes”, in: Hoffmann, Hadot (1990), pp. 1–17.
Hadot, I., 1990b, “Commentaire”, in: Hoffmann, Hadot (1990), pp. 19–182.
Hadot, I., 1990c, “The Life and Work of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources,” in: Sorabji (1990), pp. 275–303.
Hadot, I., 1991, “The Role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the Teachings of Philosophy according to the Prefaces of the Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories”, in: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Supplementary Volume 1991. Aristotle and the Later Tradition, pp. 175–189.
Hadot, P., 1990, “La logique, partie ou instrument de la philosophie?”, in: Hoffmann, Hadot (1990), pp. 183–188.
Hoffmann, P., 1986–1987, “Théologies et mystiques de la Grèce hellénistique et de la fin de l’antiquité”, École pratique des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire 95, pp. 295–305.
Hoffmann, P., 1987, “Catégories et langage selon Simplicius – La question du «skopos» du traité aristotélicien des «Categories»”, in: I. Hadot (1987), pp. 61–90.
Hoffmann, P., 1987–1988, “Théologies et mystiques de la Grèce hellénistique et de la fin de l’antiquité”, École pratique des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses. Annuaire 96, pp. 272–281.
Hoffmann, P., 1990, “Traduction”, in: Hoffmann, I. Hadot (1990), pp. 1–17.
Hoffmann, P., Hadot, I. (dir.), 1990, Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. I: Introduction, première partie (p. 1–9,3 Kalbfleisch), Leiden et New York et København et Köln.
Hoffmann, P., Luna C., 1990, Simplicius. Commentaire sur le Catégories. III: Préambule aux Catégories. Commentaire au premier chapitre des Catégories (p. 21–40, 13 Kalbfleisch), Leiden et New York et Købnhavn et Köln.
Hoffmann, P., Luna C., 2001, Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories. Chapitres 2–4, Paris.
Jacobi J. (hrsg.), 1993, Argumentationstheorie. Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen & semantischen Regeln korrekten Folgerns, Leiden und New York und Köln.
Kalbfleisch, C., 1907, Simplicii in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, Berolini.
Lloyd, A.C., 1955, “Neoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic”, Phronesis 1, pp. 58–72 146–160.
Luna, C., 1987, “La relation chez Simplicius”, in: I. Hadot (1987), pp. 113–147.
Luna, C., 1990, “Commentaire”, in: Hoffmann, Luna (1990), pp. 37–46.
Luna, C., 2001, “Commentaire”, in: Hoffmann, Luna (2001), pp. 67–874.
Mahé, J.-P., 1990, “David l’Invincible dans la tradition arménienne”, in: Hoffmann, I. Hadot (1990), pp. 189–207.
Manandean, Y., 1928, Yunaban dproc’ĕ ew nra zargac‘man šrǰannerĕ, Vienne.
Mansfeld, J., 1994, Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or a Text, Leiden and New York and Köln.
Militello, C., 2010, I commentari all’Isagoge di Porfirio tra V e VI secolo, Acireale e Roma.
Militello, C., 2013, La dottrina dell’autocoscienza nel commentario al De anima attribuito a Simplicio. Συναίστθησις e διττὴ γνῶσις, Acireale e Roma.
Morewedge P. (ed.), 1979, Islamic Philosophical Theology, Albany.
van Ophuijsen, J.M., 1994, “Where Have the Topics Gone?”, in: Fortenbaugh, Mirhady (1994), pp. 131–173.
van Ophuijsen, J.M., 2001, Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle’s Topics 1, London and Ithaca.
Pelletier, Y., 1983, Les Attributions (Catégories). Le texte aristotélicien et les prolégomènes d’Ammonios d’Hermias, Montréal et Paris.
Peters, F.E., 1968, Aristoteles Arabus, Leiden.
Peters, F.E., 1979, “The Origins of Islamic Platonism: The School Tradition”, in: Morewedge (1979), pp. 14–45.
Praechter, K., 1910, “Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus,” in: AA.VV. (1910), pp. 105–155.
Praechter, K., “Christlich-neuplatonische Beziehungen,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21, pp. 1–27.
Riposati, B., 1944, “Quid Cicero de thesi et hypothesi in «Topicis» senserit”, Aevum 18, pp. 61–71.
Rubinelli, S., 2009, Ars topica. The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero, Springer.
Shirinian, M.E., 2009, “The Armenian Version of David the Invincible’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories”, in: Calzolari, Barnes (2009), pp. 89–102.
Smith, A., 1993, Porphyrius. Fragmenta, Stutgardiae et Lipsiae.
Solmsen, F., 1944, “Boethius and the History of the Organon”, American Journal of Philology 65, pp. 69–74.
Sorabji, R.R.K. (ed.), 1990, Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, London.
Sorabji, R.R.K., 1991, “Introduction”, in: Cohen, Matthews (1991), pp. 1–6.
Spranzi, M., 2011, The Art of Dialectic between Dialogue and Rhetoric. The Aristotelian Tradition, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Strange, S.K., 1992, Porphyry. On Aristotle Categories, London.
Stump, E., 1974, “Boethius’s Works on the Topics”, Vivarium 12, pp. 77–93.
Stump, E., 1978, Boethius’s De topicis differentiis, Ithaca.
Stump, E., 1988, Boethius’s In Ciceronis Topica, Ithaca.
Thielscher, P., 1908, “Ciceros Topik und Aristoteles”, Philologus 67, 52–67.
Verrycken, K., 1990, “The Metaphysics of Ammonius Son of Hermeias,” in: Sorabji (1990), pp. 199–231.
Wallies, M., 1891, Die griechischen Ausleger der aristotelischen Topik, Berlin.
License
Peitho provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.