Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54jdg Total loading time: 0.945 Render date: 2022-08-15T17:23:46.652Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2021

Michael Erler
Affiliation:
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany
Jan Erik Heßler
Affiliation:
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany
Federico M. Petrucci
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Torino, Italy
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamson, P. (2007). ‘Porphyrius Arabus on Nature and Art: 463F Smith in Context’. In: Karamanolis, G. & Sheppard, A. (eds.) Studies on Porphyry. London: 141–63.Google Scholar
Adamson, P., Baltussen, H. & Stone, M.W.F. (eds.) (2004). Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, Vol. I. London.Google Scholar
Aerts, S. (2019). ‘Historical Approaches to Epistemic Authority: The Case of Neoplatonism’. Journal of the History of Ideas 80: 343–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aerts, S. & Opsomer, J. (2017). ‘Teksten bekleed met autoriteit: Een model voor de analyse van epistemische autoriteit in commentaartradities’. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 79: 277–94.Google Scholar
Algra, K. (2001). ‘Comments or Commentary? Zeno of Citium and Hesiod’s Theogonia. Mnemosyne 54: 562–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algra, K. (2017). ‘The Academic Origins of Stoic Cosmo-Theology and the Physics of Antiochus of Ascalon – Some Notes on the Evidence’. In: Liebersohn, Y. & Ludlam, I. (eds.) For a Skeptical Peripatetic: Festschrift in Honour of John Glucker. Sankt Augustin: 158–76.Google Scholar
Algra, K. (2018). ‘Arius Didymus as a Doxographer of Stoicism: Some Observations’. In: Mansfeld, J. & Runia, D.T. (eds.) Aëtiana IV: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography. Leiden: 53102.Google Scholar
Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J. & Schofield, M. (eds.) (1999). The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alline, H. (1915). Histoire du texte de Platon. Paris.Google Scholar
Annas, J. (1999). Platonic Ethics Old and New. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Armstrong, A.H. (ed.) (1980). Plotinus, Vol. III. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Armstrong, A.H. (ed.) (1988). Plotinus, Vol. VI. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Arnott, W.G. (ed.) (1996). Alexis: The Fragments. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Arruzza, C. (2011). ‘Passive Potentiality in the Physical Realm: Plotinus’ Critique of Aristotle in Enneads II 5 [25]’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 93: 2457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arruzza, C. (ed.) (2015). Plotinus. Ennead II.5: On What Is Potentially and What Actually. Las Vegas, Zurich & Athens.Google Scholar
Athanassiadi, P. (2002). ‘The Creation of Orthodoxy in Neoplatonism’. In: Clark, G. & Rajak, T. (eds.) Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: 271–91.Google Scholar
Athanassiadi, P. (2006). La lutte pour l’orthodoxie dans le platonisme tardif: de Numénius à Damascius. Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Athanassiadi, P. (2018). ‘Numenius: Portrait of a Platonicus’. In: Tarrant, et al. 2018: 183–205.Google Scholar
Babbitt, F.C. (ed.) (1936). Plutarch’s Moralia, Vol. V. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Babut, D. (1969). Plutarque et le Stoïcisme. Paris.Google Scholar
Babut, D. (1994). ‘Du scepticisme au dépassement de la raison: philosophie et foi religieuse chez Plutarque’. In: Parerga. Choix d’articles de D. Babut (1974–1994). Lyon: 549–81.Google Scholar
Baghdassarian, F. & Guyomarc’h, G. (eds.) (2017). Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne. D’Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse. Leuven.Google Scholar
Baldassarri, M. (1993). ‘Ein kleiner Traktat Plutarchs über stoische Logik’. In: Döring, K. & Ebert, T. (eds.) Dialektiker und Stoiker. Zur Logik der Stoa und ihrer Vorläufer. Stuttgart: 3345.Google Scholar
Baltes, M. (ed.) (1972). Timaios Lokros. Über die Natur des Kosmos und der Seele. Leiden.Google Scholar
Baltussen, H. (2008). Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius. The Methodology of a Commentator. London.Google Scholar
Baltzly, D. & Share, M. (eds.) (2018). Hermias. On Plato’s Phaedrus 227A–245E. London.Google Scholar
Baltzly, D. & Tarrant, H. (eds.) (2007). Proclus. Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Vol. I: Book 1. Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (ed.) (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, Vol. I. Princeton.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1989). ‘Antiochus of Ascalon’. In: Griffin, & Barnes, 1989: 51–96.Google Scholar
Bastianini, G. & Sedley, D. (1995). Commentarium in Platonis Theaetetum. In: Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini III. Florence: 227562.Google Scholar
Beierwaltes, W. (1979). Proklos. Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik. Frankfurt (1st ed. 1965).Google Scholar
Berman, K. & Losada, L.A. (1975). ‘The Mysterious E at Delphi’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 17: 115–17.Google Scholar
Berryman, S. (2003). ‘Ancient Automata and Mechanical Explanation’. Phronesis 48: 344–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berryman, S. (2009). The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, E. (2012). Sumphilosophein: la vita nell’Accademia di Platone. Rome & Bari.Google Scholar
Birt, T. (1907). Der Buchrolle in der Kunst. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Blank, D. (2012). ‘Varro and Antiochus’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 251–89.Google Scholar
Blondell, R. (2002). The Play of Character in Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodnár, I., Chase, M. & Share, M. (eds.) (2012). Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 8.1–5. London.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2003). Academici e Platonici. Il dibattito antico sullo scetticismo di Platone. Milan.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2004). ‘Un lettore antico della Repubblica, Numenio di Apamea’. Méthexis 17: 7184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2005). ‘Eudoro di Alessandria alle origini del Platonismo Imperiale’. In Bonazzi, M. & Celluprica, V. (eds.) L’eredità Platonica. Studi sul Platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo. Naples: 115–60.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2006). ‘Continuité et rupture entre l’Académie et le platonisme’. Études Platoniciennes 3: 231–44.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2007). ‘Eudorus’ Psychology and Stoic Ethics’. In: Bonazzi, & Helmig, 2007: 109–32.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2008). ‘L’offerta di Plutarco. Teologia e filosofia nel De E apud Delphos (capitoli 1–2)’. Philologus 152: 205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2012). ‘Antiochus and Platonism’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 307–33.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2013). ‘Pythagoreanising Aristotle: Eudorus and the Systematisation of Platonism’. In: Schofield, 2013: 160–86.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2015). À la Recherche des Idées. Platonisme et Philosophie Hellénistique d’Antiochus à Plotin. Paris.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2017–2018). ‘Le Bien selon Numénius et la République de Platon’. Chôra 15–16: 127–38.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. (2018). ‘Héraclite, l’Académie et le platonisme: Une confrontation entre Cicéron et Plutarque’. In: Franchet, S. & d’Espèrey-Lévy, C. (eds.) Les présocratiques à Rome. Paris: 129–42.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. & Helmig, Ch. (eds.) (2007). Platonic Stoicism, Stoic Platonism. The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity. Leuven.Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. & Opsomer, J. (eds.) (2009). The Origins of the Platonic System. Platonisms of the Early Empire and their Philosophical Contexts. Leuven.Google Scholar
Bonitz, H. (1870). Index Aristotelicus. Berlin.Google Scholar
Boulogne, J., Broze, M. & Couloubaritsis, L. (eds.) (2006). Les Platonismes des premiers siècles de notre ère. Plutarque, E de Delphes. Brussels.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2001). Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. A Study of Its Development from the Stoics to Origen. Oxford.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2007). ‘“Middle” Platonists on Fate and Human Autonomy’. In: Sharples, & Sorabji, 2007: Vol. II, 431–47.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2011). ‘Time, Creation and the Mind of God: The Afterlife of a Platonist Theory in Origen’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 40: 319–37.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2012). ‘Antiochus’ Metaphysics’. In Sedley, 2012a: 220–6.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2016). ‘Are We Nearly There Yet? Eudorus on Aristotle’s Categories’. In: Engberg-Pedersen, T. (ed.) From Stoicism to Platonism. The Development of Philosophy 100 bce–100 ce. Cambridge: 6779.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2018a). Platonist Philosophy 80 bc to 250 ad. A Study and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. (2018b). ‘Numenius on Intellect, Soul, and the Authority of Plato’. In: Bryan, et al. 2018: 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisson, L. (1974). Le Même et l’Autre dans la structure ontologique du Timée. Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Brittain, Ch. (2001). Philo of Larissa. The Last Academic Sceptic. Oxford.Google Scholar
Brittain, Ch. (2005). ‘Common Sense: Concepts, Definitions and Meaning in and out of Stoa’. In: Frede, & Inwood, 2005: 164–209.Google Scholar
Brittain, Ch. (2012). ‘Antiochus’ Epistemology’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 104–30.Google Scholar
Brittain, Ch. & Palmer, J. (2001). ‘The New Academy’s Appeal to the Presocratics’. Phronesis 46: 3872.Google Scholar
Broadie, S. (2007). ‘Why No Platonistic Forms of Artefacts?’ In: Scott, D. (ed.) Maieusis. Essays in Ancient Philosophy in Honour of Myles Burnyeat. Oxford: 232–53.Google Scholar
Brouillette, X. & Giavatto, A. (eds.) (2010). Les dialogues Platoniciens chez Plutarque. Stratégies et méthodes exégétiques. Leuven.Google Scholar
Bryan, J., Wardy, R. & Warren, J. (eds.) (2018). Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkert, W. (1961). ‘Hellenistische Pseudopythagorica’. Philologus 105: 16–43, 226–46.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1971). ‘Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica’. In: von Fritz, K. (ed.) Pseudepigrapha I. Vandœuvres & Geneva: 2555.Google Scholar
Burkert, W. (1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. (1997). ‘Antipater and Self-Refutation: Elusive Arguments in Cicero’s Academica’. In: Inwood & Mansfeld 1997: 277–310.Google Scholar
Burnyeat, M. (2005). ‘Archytas and Optics’. Science in Context 18: 3553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabi, F. (2017). ‘L’agricoltura divina in Filone di Alessandria e in Numenio’. Études platoniciennes [online] 13.Google Scholar
Carlini, A. (1972). Studi sulla tradizione antica e medievale del Fedone. Rome.Google Scholar
Caruso, A. (2013). Akademia: Archeologia di una scuola filosofica ad Atene da Platone a Proclo (387 a.C.–485 d.C.). Studi di Archeologia e di Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 6. Athens & Paestum.Google Scholar
Caruso, A. (2014). ‘Il “giardino di Teofrasto”. Inquadramento topografico della scuola peripatetica di Atene tra il IV e il III sec. a.C.’. In: Caliò, L. & Parisi, V. (eds.) Gli Ateniesi e il loro modello di città. Rome: 197216.Google Scholar
Caston, V. (1999). ‘Something and Nothing: The Stoics on Concepts and Universals’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17: 145213.Google Scholar
Catana, L. (2013). ‘The Origin of the Division Between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism’. Apeiron 46: 166200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (1990). Pseudopythagorica ethica. I trattati morali di Archita, Metopo, Teage, Eurifamo. Introduzione, edizione, traduzione e commento. Naples.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (1992). ‘L' VIII libro delle Vite di Diogene Laerzio’. In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Band II.36.6. Berlin & New York: 4183–217.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (2000a). ‘Che cosa significa essere pitagorico in età imperiale. Per una riconsiderazione della categoria storiografica di neopitagorismo’. In: Brancacci, A. (ed.) La filosofia in età imperiale. Naples: 139–68.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (2000b). ‘La letteratura pseudopitagorica. Origini, diffusione, finalità’. In: Cerri, G. (ed.) La letteratura pseudepigrafa antica. AION, sez. filol.-lett. 22: 429–52.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (2000c). ‘Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the Early Empire’. In: Rowe, Ch. & Schofield, M. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought. Cambridge: 559–84.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (2005). ‘Myia’. In: Goulet, R. (ed.) Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Vol. IV. Paris: 573–4.Google Scholar
Centrone, B. (ed.) (2014). ‘The Pseudo-Pythagorean Writings’. In: Huffman, 2014b: 315–40.Google Scholar
Chase, M. (2012). ‘Porphyre de Tyr (P263): Commentaires sur des traités aristotéliciens’. In: Goulet, R. (ed.) Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, Vol. Vb. Paris: 1350–7.Google Scholar
Cherniss, H. (1945). The Riddle of the Early Academy. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2009). ‘Autour d’Eudore: les debuts de l’exégèse des Catégories dans le Moyen Platonisme’. In Bonazzi, & Opsomer, 2009: 89–112.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2011). ‘Interpretazione filosofica e ricezione del corpus: Il caso di Aristotele (100 a.C.–200 d.C.)’. Quaestio 11: 83114.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2013). ‘Platonist Approaches to Aristotle: From Antiochus of Ascalon to Eudorus of Alexandria (and beyond)’. In: Schofield, 2013: 28–52.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2014a). ‘Plotinus’ Metaphorical Reading of the Timaeus: Soul, Mathematics, Providence’. In: d’Hoine, P. & Van Riel, G. (eds.) Fate, Providence and Moral Responsibility in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Thought. Studies in Honour of Carlos Steel. Leuven: 187210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2014b). ‘Substance’. In: Remes, & Slaveva-Griffin, 2014b: 216–30.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2016). ‘Porphyry and the Aristotelian Tradition’. In: Falcon, A. (ed.) The Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity. Leiden & Boston: 321–40.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. (2017). ‘Théologie et époptique aristotéliciennes dans le médioplatonisme: La réception de Métaphysique Λ’. In: Baghdassarian, & Guyomarc’h, 2017: 143–57.Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, R. & Rashed, M. (eds.) (2020). Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe. Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chlup, R. (2012). Proclus. An Introduction. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colvin, M. (2005). ‘Heraclitus and Material Flux in Stoic Psychology’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 28: 257–72.Google Scholar
Cornford, F.M. (1939). Plato and Parmenides. London.Google Scholar
Corssen, P. (1912). ‘Die Sprengung des pythagoreischen Bundes’. Philologus 71: 332–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corti, A. (2014). L’Adversus Colotem di Plutarco. Storia di una polemica filosofica. Leuven.Google Scholar
Dancy, R. (1999). ‘The Categories of Being in Plato’s Sophist 255c–e’. Ancient Philosophy 19: 4572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, R. (2003). ‘Xenocrates’. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenocrates/.Google Scholar
D’Ancona, C. & Luna, C. (2000). ‘La doctrine des principes: Syrianus comme source textuelle et doctrinale de Proclus’. In: Segonds, A.Ph. & Steel, C. (eds.) Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du Colloque International de Louvain (13–16 mai 1998). Leuven & Paris: 189278.Google Scholar
de Haas, F.A.J. & Fleet, B. (eds.) (2001). Simplicius. On Aristotle Categories 5–6. London.Google Scholar
Denyer, N. (ed.) (2001). Plato. Alcibiades. Cambridge.Google Scholar
des Places, É. (ed.) (1973). Numénius. Fragments. Paris.Google Scholar
des Places, É. (ed.) (1977). Atticus. Fragments. Paris.Google Scholar
d’Hoine, P. (2006). ‘Proclus and Syrianus on Ideas of Artefacts. A Test Case for Neoplatonic Hermeneutics’. In: Perkams, & Piccione, 2006: 279–302.Google Scholar
d’Hoine, P., & Martijn, M. (eds.) (2016). All from One. A Guide to Proclus. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (1973). Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Leiden.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (1977). The Middle Platonists: 80 BC to AD 220. Ithaca & London (rev. ed. 1996).Google Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (1991). The Golden Chain: Studies in the Development of Platonism and Christianity. London.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (1993). Alcinous: The Handbook of Platonism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (2003). The Heirs of Plato. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (2007). ‘The Origins of Platonists’ Dogmatism’. ΣΧΟΛΗ 1: 2537.Google Scholar
Dillon, J.M. (ed.) (2014). ‘Pythagoreanism in the Academic Tradition’. In: Huffman, 2014b: 250–73.Google Scholar
Dodds, E.R. (ed.) (1963). Proclus. The Elements of Theology. Oxford.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1974). Tre studi sull’aristotelismo nel II secolo d.C. Turin.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1982). Le scuole, l’anima, l’impero: la filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino. Turin.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1990). ‘Medioplatonismo e filosofi medioplatonici. Una raccolta di studi’. Elenchos 11: 7993 = Donini 2011: 283–96.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1992). ‘Plutarco e i metodi dell’esegesi filosofica’. In: Gallo, I. & Laurenti, R. (eds.) I moralia di Plutarco tra filologia e filosofia. Naples: 7996.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (1999). ‘Platone e Aristotele nella tradizione pitagorica secondo Plutarco’. In: Pérez Jiménez, A., García López, J., Aguilar, R. Ma (eds.) Plutarco, Platón y Aristóteles. Madrid: 924 = Donini 2011: 359–73.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (2002). ‘L’eredità academica e i fondamenti del platonismo in Plutarco’. In: Barbanti, M., Giardina, G. & Manganaro, P. (eds.) Henosis kai philia: Unione e amicizia. Omaggio a Francesco Romano. Catania: 247–73 = Donini 2011: 375–402.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (2003). ‘Socrate pitagorico e medioplatonico’. Elenchos 24: 333–59.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (2011). Commentary and Tradition. Aristotelianism, Platonism and Post-Hellenistic Philosophy, ed. Bonazzi, M.. Berlin & New York.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (2012). ‘Review of Sedley 2012a’. Méthexis 25: 151–63.Google Scholar
Donini, P. (ed.) (2017). Plutarco. Il demone di Socrate. Rome.Google Scholar
Dorandi, T. (1982). ‘Filodemo. Gli Stoici (PHerc. 135 e 339)’. Cronache Ercolanesi 12: 91133.Google Scholar
Dorandi, T. (2016). ‘Potamone di Alessandria’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 199: 33–5.Google Scholar
Dörrie, H. & Baltes, M. (1993). Der Platonismus in der Antike III: Der Platonismus im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert nach Christus. Bausteine 73–100. Stuttgart & Bad-Cannstatt.Google Scholar
Dörrie, H. & Baltes, M. (1996). Der Platonismus in der Antike IV: Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik (im antiken Verständnis) I. Bausteine 101–24. Stuttgart & Bad Cannstatt.Google Scholar
Erler, M. (1992). ‘Orthodoxie und Anpassung: Philodem, ein Panaïtios des Kepos?Museum Helveticum 49: 171200.Google Scholar
Erler, M. (2008). ‘Die helfende Hand Gottes. Augustins Gnadenlehre im Kontext des kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus’. In: Fuhrer, Th. (ed.) Die christlich-philosophischen Diskurse der Spätantike: Texte, Personen, Institutionen. Stuttgart: 189204.Google Scholar
Erler, M. (2018). ‘“Mulier tam imperiosae auctoritatis” (Boeth., Cons. 1,1,13): Auctoritas und philosophia in römischer und griechischer Philosophie’. In: Müller, J. & Rode, Ch. (eds.) Freiheit und Geschichte: Festschrift für Theo Kobusch zum 70. Geburtstag. Münster: 3957. English version: ‘“Mulier tam imperiosae auctoritatis” (Boeth., Cons. 1.1.13): On the relationship between auctoritas and philosophia in Greek and Roman philosophy’. Politeia. International Interdisciplinary Philosophical Review 1 (2019): 195–210.Google Scholar
Falcon, A. (2013). ‘Aristotelianism in the I century BC. Xenarchus of Seleucia’. In: Schofield, 2013: 78–94.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (1995). Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmos in Plutarco di Cheronea. Naples.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2001). ‘Struttura e funzione dell’esegesi testuale nel medioplatonismo: il caso del Timeo. Athenaeum 89: 525–74.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2010). ‘La costruzione del Platonismo nel de E apud Delphos di Plutarco’. Athenaeum 98: 7187. French version: ‘La construction du Platonisme dans le de E apud Delphos de Plutarque’. In: Brouillette & Giavatto 2010: 47–62.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2014). ‘Gott als Vater und Schöpfer. Zur Rezeption von Timaios 28c3–5 bei einigen Platonikern’. In Albrecht, F. & Feldmeier, R. (eds.) The Divine Father: Religious and Philosophical Concepts of Divine Parenthood in Antiquity. Leiden & Boston: 5769.Google Scholar
Ferrari, F. (2018). ‘Harpokration von Argos’. In: Riedweg, Ch., Horn, Ch. & Wyrwa, D. (eds.) Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, Band 5-1 von Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, begründet von F. Ueberweg, völlig neu bearbeitete Ausgabe von H. Holzhey. Basel: 601–4.Google Scholar
Festa, N. (ed.) (1935). I frammenti degli Stoici antichi, Vol. II: Aristone, Apollofane, Erillo, Dionigi di Eraclea, Perseo, Cleante, Sfero. Bari.Google Scholar
Festugière, A.J. (1954). La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste IV. Le dieu inconnu et la gnose. Paris.Google Scholar
Flamand, J.-M. (1992). Deus otiosus, Recherches lexicales pour servir à la critique religieuse d’Épicure’. In: ΣΟΦΙΗΣ ΜΑΙΗΤΟΡΕΣ, Chercheurs de Sagesse, Hommage à Jean Pépin. Paris: 147–66.Google Scholar
Fleischer, K. (2015). ‘Der Stoiker Mnesarch als Lehrer des Antiochos im Index Academicorum’. Mnemosyne 68: 413–23.Google Scholar
Fleischer, K. (2016). ‘New Readings in Philodemus’ Historia Academicorum: Dio of Alexandria (PHerc 1021, col. XXXV 17–19)’. In: Derda, T. et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th Congress of Papyrology. Warsaw: 459–70.Google Scholar
Frede, D. (2018). ‘A Superannuated Student: Aristotle and Authority in the Academy’. In: Bryan et al. 2018: 78–101.Google Scholar
Frede, D., & Inwood, B. (eds.) (2005). Language and Learning. Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. (1987). ‘Numenius’. In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Band II.36.2. Berlin & New York: 1034–75.Google Scholar
Frede, M. (1999). ‘Epilogue’. In: Algra, et al. 1999: 771–97.Google Scholar
Fronterotta, F. (ed.) (2013). Eraclito. Frammenti. Milan.Google Scholar
Gaiser, K. (1980). Das Philosophenmosaik in Neapel. Eine Darstellung der platonischen Akademie. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Gallo, I. (1981). Teatro ellenistico minore. Rome.Google Scholar
Gerson, L. (2005). Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca & London.Google Scholar
Gerson, L. (ed.) (2013). The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gertz, S. (2010). ‘Do Plato and Aristotle Agree on Self-Motion in Souls?’ In: Finamore, J.F. & Berchman, R.M. (eds.) Conversations Platonic and Neoplatonic: Intellect, Soul, and Nature. Sankt Augustin: 7385.Google Scholar
Gill, M.L. (1994). ‘Aristotle on Self-Motion’. In: Gill, & Lennox, 1994: 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M.L. & Lennox, J.G. (1994). Self-motion: From Aristotle to Newton. Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gioè, A. (ed.) (2002). Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.C. Testimonianze e frammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione. Naples.Google Scholar
Glucker, J. (1978). Antiochus and the Late Academy. Göttingen.Google Scholar
Golitsis, P. (2015). ‘On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot’. Aestimatio 12: 5682.Google Scholar
Golitsis, P. (2018). ‘Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers’. In: Strobel, B. (ed.) Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätantiken Platon- und Aristoteles-Kommentatoren. Akten der Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier. Berlin & New York: 6999.Google Scholar
Görler, W. (1990). ‘Antiochos von Askalon über die “Alten” und über Die Stoa’. In: Steinmetz, P. (ed.) Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom. Stuttgart: 123–39 = Görler 2004: 87–104.Google Scholar
Görler, W. (1997). ‘Cicero’s Philosophical Stance in the Lucullus’. In: Inwood, & Mansfeld, 1997: 36–57.Google Scholar
Görler, W. (2004). Kleine Schriften zur hellenistisch-römischen Philosophie. Leiden.Google Scholar
Graham, D.W. 2003, ‘Does Nature Love to Hide? Heraclitus B123 DK’. Classical Philology 98: 175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, D.W. (2013). ‘Once More unto the Stream’. In: Sider, & Obbink, 2013: 303–20.Google Scholar
Graßhoff, G., & Meyer, M. (eds.) (2016). Representing Authority in Ancient Knowledge Texts. Special issue of eTopoi Journal of Ancient Studies, 6.Google Scholar
Griffin, Michael (2014). ‘Hypostasizing Socrates’. In: Layne, & Tarrant, 2014: 97–108.Google Scholar
Griffin, Michael (2015a). Aristotle’s “Categories” in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Michael (ed.) (2015b). Olympiodorus. Life of Plato and On Plato First Alcibiades 1–9. London.Google Scholar
Griffin, Miriam (1997). ‘The Composition of the Academica: Motives and Versions’. In: Inwood, & Mansfeld, 1997: 3–32.Google Scholar
Griffin, Miriam & Barnes, J. (eds.) (1989). Philosophia Togata I. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffin, Miriam & Barnes, J. (eds.) (1997). Philosophia Togata II. Oxford.Google Scholar
Griffiths, A. (2016). ‘Navel-Gazing in Naples? The Painting Behind the “Pompeii Philosophers”’. Syllecta Classica 27: 151–66.Google Scholar
Hadot, I. (ed.) (1990). Simplicius. Commentaire sur les catégories, Vol. 1. Leiden.Google Scholar
Hadot, I. (ed.) (2015). Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadot, P. (1981). ‘Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus in Plotinus’ Treatise against the Gnostics’. In: Blumenthal, H. J. & Markus, R.A. (eds.) Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought. Essays in Honour of A.H. Armstrong. London: 124–38.Google Scholar
Hahm, D.E. (1977). The Origin of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus.Google Scholar
Hahm, D.E. (2007). ‘Critolaus and Late Hellenistic Peripatetic Philosophy’. In: Ioppolo, & Sedley, 2007: 47–101.Google Scholar
Hankinson, R.J. (1985). The Skeptics. London.Google Scholar
Hatzimichali, M. (2011). Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hatzimichali, M. (2013). ‘The Texts of Plato and Aristotle in the I century BC’. In: Schofield, 2013: 1–27.Google Scholar
Helmig, Ch. (2009). ‘The Truth Can Never Be Refuted: Syrianus’ Views on Aristotle Reconsidered’. In: Longo, A. (ed.) Syrianus et la métaphysique de l’antiquité tardive. Naples: 347–80.Google Scholar
Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (eds.) (1983). Plotini opera, Vol. III (editio minor). Oxford.Google Scholar
Heßler, J.E. (2018). ‘Plato, Hyperides, and Hellenistic Cult Practice. On the Commemoration of the Dead in the School of Epicurus’. Mnemosyne 71: 408–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, R.D. (ed.) (1925). Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Ph. (1998). ‘La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée pédagogique néoplatonicienne’. In: Dubois, J.-D. & Roussel, B. (eds.) Entrer en matière: Les prologues. Paris: 209–45.Google Scholar
Horky, Ph. (2013). ‘Theophrastus on Platonic and “Pythagorean” imitation’. Classical Quarterly 63: 686712.Google Scholar
Huffman, C. (2005). Archytas of Tarentum. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, C. (2014a). ‘The Peripatetics on the Pythagoreans’. In: Huffman, 2014b: 274–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, C. (ed.) (2014b). A History of Pythagoreanism. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inwood, B. (2007). Seneca: Selected Philosophical Letters. Oxford.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. (2012). ‘Antiochus’ Physics’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 188–219.Google Scholar
Inwood, B. & Mansfeld, J. (eds.) (1997). Assent and Argument: Studies in Cicero’s ‘Academic Books’. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1980). Aristone di Chio e lo Stoicismo antico. Naples.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1986). Opinione e scienza. Il dibattito tra Stoici e Accademici nel terzo e secondo secolo a.C. Naples.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1990). ‘Presentation and Assent: a Physical and Cognitive Problem in Early Stoicism’. Classical Quarterly 40: 433–49 = Ioppolo 2013: 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1995). ‘Socrate nelle tradizioni accademico-scettica e pirroniana’. In Giannantoni, G. et al. (eds.) La tradizione socratica. Naples: 89123 = Ioppolo 2009: 209–40.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (1997). ‘Fidelity to Zeno’s Theory’. In: Moutsopoulos, E.A. (ed.) Chypre et les origines du stoïcisme. Diotima 25: 62–73 = Ioppolo 2013: 181–92.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2000). ‘Su alcune recenti interpretazioni dello scetticismo dell'Accademia. Plutarch Adv. Col. 26.1121F–1122F: una testimonianza su Arcesilao’. Elenchos 21: 333–60.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2004). ‘La posizione di Plutarco nei confronti dello scetticismo’. In Gallo, I. (ed.) La biblioteca di Plutarco. Naples: 289310.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2008). ‘Arcésilas dans le Lucullus de Cicéron’. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 1: 2144 = Ioppolo 2013: 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2009). La testimonianza di Sesto Empirico sull’Accademia scettica. Naples.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2013). Dibattiti filosofici ellenistici. Dottrina delle cause, Stoicismo, Accademia scettica. ed. Centrone, B., Chiaradonna, R., Quarantotto, D., Spinelli, E.. Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. (2018). ‘Arcesilaus’. In Machuca, D. & Reed, B. (eds.) Skepticism from Antiquity to the Present. New York: 3650.Google Scholar
Ioppolo, A.M. & Sedley, D. (eds.) (2007). Pyrrhonists, Patricians, Platonizers: Hellenistic Philosophy in the Period 155–86 bc. Naples.Google Scholar
Irwin, Th. (2012). ‘Antiochus, Aristotle and the Stoics on Degrees of Happiness’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 151–72.Google Scholar
Isnardi Parente, M. (ed.) (1980). Speusippo. Frammenti. Naples.Google Scholar
Isnardi Parente, M. (ed.) (2012). Senocrate e Ermodoro. Testimonianze e frammenti, 2nd ed., ed. Dorandi, T.. Pisa.Google Scholar
Jackson, R., Lycos, K. & Tarrant, H. (eds.) (1998). Olympiodorus: Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jourdan, F. (2015). ‘Eusèbe de Césarée et les extraits de Numénius dans la Préparation Évangélique’. In: Morlet, S. (ed.) Lire en extraits, Lecture et production des textes de l’Antiquité à la fin du Moyen-Âge. Paris: 107–48.Google Scholar
Jourdan, F. (2017–2018). ‘Sur le Bien de Numénius: L’enseignement oral de Platon comme occasion de rechercher son pythagorisme dans ses écrits’. Chôra 15–16: 139–65.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ch. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ch. (1996). Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kahn, Ch. (2001). Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans. A Brief History. Indianapolis & Cambridge.Google Scholar
Karamanolis, G. (2004). ‘Porphyry: The First Platonist Commentator on Aristotle’. In: Adamson, et al. 2004: 97–120.Google Scholar
Karamanolis, G. (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karamanolis, G. (2013). ‘Numenius’. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/numenius/.Google Scholar
Karamanolis, G. (2014). ‘The Platonism of Eusebius of Caesarea’. In: Fowler, R. (ed.) Plato in the Third Sophistic. Berlin & New York: 171–91.Google Scholar
Kirk, G.S., Raven, J. & Schofield, M. (eds.) (1983). The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, J., & Woolf, G. (eds.) (2017). Authority and Expertise in Ancient Scientific Culture, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakmann, M.-L. (ed.) (2017). Platonici minores, 1. Jh.v.Chr. - 2. Jh.n.Chr. Prosopographie, Fragmente und Testimonien, mit deutscher Übersetzung. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laks, A. (2010). ‘Éclairer l’obscurité. Brucker et le syncrétisme platonicien’. In: Neschke, A. (ed.) Argumenta in dialogos Platonis, Vol. I. Basel: 352–69.Google Scholar
Larsen, B.D. (ed.) (1972). Jamblique de Chalcis: exégète et philosophe. Aarhus.Google Scholar
Layne, D. (2014). ‘The Character of Socrates and the Good of Dialogue Form’. In: Layne, & Tarrant, 2014: 80–96.Google Scholar
Layne, D. & Tarrant, H. (2014). The Neoplatonic Socrates. Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lernould, A. (2001). Physique et Théologie. Lecture du Timée de Platon par Proclus. Villeneuve d’Ascq.Google Scholar
Lernould, A. (2006). ‘Sur la composition de l’E de Delphes de Plutarque’. In: Boulogne, et al. 2006: 17–29.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. (2001). ‘Pyrrhon, Enésidème et Sextus Empiricus: la question de la légitimation historique dans le scepticisme’. In Brancacci, A. (ed.) Antichi e moderni nella filosofia di età imperiale. Naples: 299329.Google Scholar
Lévy, C. (ed.) (2014). Présocratiques Latines. Traductions. Introductions et commentaires. Paris.Google Scholar
Linguiti, A. (2014). ‘Physics and Metaphysics’. In: Remes, & Slaveva-Griffin, 2014b: 343–55.Google Scholar
Long, A.A. (1975–1976). ‘Heraclitus and the Stoics’. Philosophia 5–6: 133–56 = Long 1996: 35–57.Google Scholar
Long, A.A. (1986). ‘Diogenes Laertius, Life of Arcesilaus’. Elenchos 7: 429–50 = ‘Arcesilaus in His Time and Place’ in Long, 2006: 96–113.Google Scholar
Long, A.A. (1996). Stoic Studies. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London.Google Scholar
Long, A.A. (1999). ‘Stoic Psychology’. In: Algra, et al. 1999: 560–84.Google Scholar
Long, A.A. (2006). From Epicurus to Epictetus. Oxford & New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A.A. (2013). ‘Heraclitus on Measure and the Explicit Emergence of Rationality’. In Sider, & Obbink, 2013: 201–23.Google Scholar
Longo, A. (ed.) (2009). Syrianus et la métaphysique de l’Antiquité tardive. Actes du colloque international, Université de Genève, 29 septembre – 1er octobre 2006. Naples.Google Scholar
Longo, A. (ed.) (2017). ‘Numénius d'Apamée précurseur de Plotin dans l’allégorèse de la théogonie d'Hésiode: le mythe de Kronos, Ouranos et Zeus’. In: Gavray, M.-A. & Michalewski, A. (eds.) Les principes cosmologiques du platonisme: Origines, influences et systématisation. Turnhout: 167–85.Google Scholar
Longo, A. (ed.) (2020). ‘What is the Principle of Movement, the Self-moved (Plato) or the Unmoved (Aristotle)? The Exegetic Strategies of Hermias of Alexandria and Simplicius in Late Antiquity’. In: J.F. Finamore, C.-P. Manolea & S. Klitenic Wear (eds.) Studies in Hermias’ Commentary on Plato’s Phaedrus. Leiden & Boston: 115–41.Google Scholar
Lucarini, C.M. & Moreschini, C. (eds.) (2012). Hermias Alexandrinus. In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia. Berlin.Google Scholar
Luna, C. (ed.) (2001). Simplicius. Commentaire sur les Catégories d’Aristote. Chapitres 2–4. Paris.Google Scholar
Luna, C. & Segonds, A.Ph. (eds.) (2007–2017). Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon. Texte établi, traduit et annoté. 6 vols. Paris.Google Scholar
Luna, C. & Segonds, A.Ph. (eds.) (2007a). Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, Vol. 1.1: Introduction générale. Paris.Google Scholar
Luna, C. & Segonds, A.Ph. (eds.) (2007b). Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parménide de Platon, Vol. 1.2: Livre I. Paris.Google Scholar
Luna, C. & Segonds, A.Ph. (eds.) (2013). Proclus. Commentaire sur le Parmánide de Platon, Vol. 4.2: Notes complémentaires et index du livre IV. Paris.Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1992). Heresiography in Context. Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1994). Prolegomena. Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, Or a Text. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (2010). ‘Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, the Peripatetics, the Stoics, and Thales and His Followers “On Causes”’. In J. Mansfeld & D.T. Runia (eds.). Aëtiana, Vol. III: Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Ancient Philosophy. Leiden & Boston: 377–413 (previosuly published in Brancacci, A. (ed.) Antichi e moderni nella filosofia di età imperiale. Naples 2001: 1768).Google Scholar
Marcovich, M. (ed.) (2001). Heraclitus: Greek Text with a Short Commentary. Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Marg, W. (ed.) (1972). Timaeus Locrus, De Natura Mundi et Animae. Überlieferung, Testimonia, Text und Übersetzung. Leiden.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J.-M. (2007). ‘La connaissance de Dieu comme navigation en haute mer: en remontant de Grégoire de Nazianze vers Platon’. In: Laurent, J. (ed.) Les dieux de Platon. Caen: 251–61.Google Scholar
Mattusch, C. (2008.) Pompeii and the Roman Villa. London.Google Scholar
Mayhew, R. (ed.) (2008). Plato. Laws 10. Oxford.Google Scholar
Mayor, A. (2018). Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology. Princeton.Google Scholar
McCabe, M.M. (1996). ‘Unity in the Parmenides: The Unity of the Parmenides’. In: Gill, C. & McCabe, M.M. (eds.) Form and Argument in Late Plato. Oxford: 547.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. (ed.) (1973). Plato. Theaetetus. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meerwaldt, J.D. (1951). ‘Cleanthea I’. Mnemosyne 4: 4069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menn, S. (2002). ‘Aristotle’s Definition of Soul and the Programme of the De Anima. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 22: 83139.Google Scholar
Menn, S. (2012). ‘Self-Motion and Reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the Harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the Soul’. In: Wilberding, & Horn, 2012: 44–67.Google Scholar
Menn, S. (2013). ‘Avicenna’s Metaphysics’. In: Adamson, P. (ed.) Interpreting Avicenna: Critical Essays. Cambridge: 143–69.Google Scholar
Michalewski, A. (2012). ‘Le Premier de Numénius et l’Un de Plotin’. Archives de Philosophie, 75: 2948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalewski, A. (2014). La puissance de l’intelligible. La théorie plotinienne des Formes au miroir de l’héritage médioplatonicien. Leuven.Google Scholar
Michalewski, A. (2017). ‘Faut-il préférer Epicure à Aristote ? Quelques réflexions sur la providence’. In: Baghdassarian, & Guyomarc’h, 2017: 123–42.Google Scholar
Moraux, P. (1984). Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, II. Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh.n.Ch. Berlin & New York.Google Scholar
Moraux, P. (1985). ‘Porphyre, commentateur de la Physique d’Aristote’. In: Rutten, Ch. & Motte, A. (eds.) Aristotelica: Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte. Brussels: 227–39.Google Scholar
Moreschini, C. (ed.) (1997). Plutarco: L’E di Delfi. Naples.Google Scholar
Morlet, S. (2015). ‘“Extraire” dans la littérature antique’. In: Morlet, S. (ed.) Lire en extraits: Lecture et production des textes de l’Antiquité à la fin du Moyen-Âge. Paris: 2952.Google Scholar
Morrow, G.R. & Dillon, J.M. (eds.) (1987). Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. Princeton.Google Scholar
Noble, Ch. (2013). ‘Plotinus’ Unaffectable Matter’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44: 233–77.Google Scholar
Noble, Ch. (2016). ‘Plotinus’ Unaffectable Soul’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 51: 231-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, C.S. (2015). The Demiurge in Ancient Thought. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, D. (1996). ‘Plotinus on Matter and Evil’. In: Gerson, L.P. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: 171–95.Google Scholar
O’Meara, D.J. (1989). Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford.Google Scholar
O’Meara, D.J. (2003). Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford.Google Scholar
O’Neill, W. (ed.) (1965). Proclus: Alcibiades 1. A Translation and Commentary. The Hague.Google Scholar
Obsieger, H. (ed.) (2013). Plutarch. De E apud Delphos. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (1998). In Search of the Truth. Academic Tendencies in Middle Platonism. Brussel.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2005a). ‘Demiurges in Early Imperial Platonism’. In: Hirsch-Luipold, R. (ed.) Gott und die Götter bei Plutarch. Berlin: 5199.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2005b). ‘A Craftsman and His Handmaiden. Demiurgy According to Plotinus’. In: Leinkauf, T. & Steel, C. (eds.) Plato’s Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Leuven: 67102.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2006a): ‘To Find the Maker and Father. Proclus’ Exegesis of Tim. 28C3–5’. Études Platoniciennes 2: 261–83.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2006b). ‘Éléments stoïciens dans le De E apud Delphos de Plutarque’. In Boulogne, et al. 2006: 148–70.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2009a). ‘M. Annius Ammonius, A Philosophical Profile’. In: Bonazzi, & Opsomer, 2009: 123–86.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2009b). ‘The Integration of Aristotelian Physics in a Neoplatonic Context: Proclus on Movers and Divisibility’. In: Chiaradonna, R. & Trabattoni, F. (eds.) Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism. Leiden & Boston: 189229.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2010). ‘Arguments non-linéaires et pensées en cercles. Forme et argumentation dans les Questions Platoniciennes de Plutarque’. In Brouillette, & Giavatto, 2010: 93–116.Google Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2012). ‘Self-Motion According to Iamblichus’. Elenchos 33: 259–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opsomer, J. (2015). ‘A Much Misread Proposition from Proclus’ Elements of Theology (prop. 28)’. Classical Quarterly 65: 433–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opsomer, J. & Ulacco, A. (2016). ‘What is Epistemic Authority? A Model and Some Examples from Ancient Philosophy’. In: Leemans, J., Meijns, B., Boodts, S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Leuven Conference ‘Shaping Authority’. Turnhout: 2146.Google Scholar
Pearson, A.C. (1891). The Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes. London.Google Scholar
Pépin, J. (1995). ‘Plotin et les mythes’. Revue Philosophique de Louvain 37: 527.Google Scholar
Perkams, M. (2006). ‘Das Prinzip der Harmonisierung verschiedener Traditionen in den neuplatonischen Kommentaren zu Platon und Aristoteles’. In: van Ackeren, M. & Müller, J. (eds.) Antike Philosophie verstehen – Understanding Ancient Philosophy. Darmstadt: 332–47.Google Scholar
Perkams, M. & Piccione, R.M. (eds.) (2006). Proklos: Methode, Seelenlehre, Metaphysik. Akten der Konferenz in Jena am 18.–20. September 2003. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrucci, F.M. (ed.) (2012). Teone di Smirne. Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium. Introduzione, traduzione, commento. Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Petrucci, F.M. (ed.) (2014). ‘Le témoignage du deuxième livre du Commentaire au Timée de Proclus sur la forme des arguments médioplatoniciens au sujet de la genèse du monde’. Revue des Études Grecques 127: 331–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrucci, F.M. (ed.) (2016). ‘Théon de Smyrne’. In: Goulet, R. (ed.) Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Vol. VI. Paris: 1016–29.Google Scholar
Petrucci, F.M. (ed.) (2018). Taurus of Beirut: The Other Side of Middle Platonism. London & New York.Google Scholar
Planeaux, C. (2001). ‘Socrates, an Unreliable Narrator? The Dramatic Setting of the Lysis’. Classical Philology 96: 60–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanski, R.M. (1992). Philosophy and Knowledge: A Commentary on Plato's Theaetetus. London & Toronto.Google Scholar
Pradeau, J.-F. (ed.) (2002). Héraclite. Fragments. [Citations et Témoignages]. Paris.Google Scholar
Rackham, H. (ed.) (1931). Cicero: De finibus bonorum et malorum. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Rackham, H. (ed.) (1967). Cicero: De natura deorum, Academica. Cambridge, MA & London.Google Scholar
Radke, G. (2006). Das Lächeln des Parmenides. Proklos’ Interpretationen zur Platonischen Dialogform. Berlin & New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Ch. (2017). ‘His Dearest Enemy. Heraclitus in the Aristotelian Oeuvre’. In: Fantino, E. et al. (eds.) Heraklit im Kontext. Studia praesocratica, 8. Berlin & Boston: 415–38.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. (ed.) (2011). Alexandre d'Aphrodise, Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote: Livres IV–VIII. Les scholies byzantines. Berlin & Boston.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. (2013a). ‘La mosaïque des philosophes de Naples: une représentation de l’académie platonicienne et son commanditaire’. In: Noirot, C. & Ondine, N. (eds.) Omnia in uno: Hommage à Alain Segonds. Paris, 2749.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. (2013b). ‘Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology’. In: Schofield, 2013: 53–77. Reprinted with changes in R. Sorabji (ed.) (2016). Aristotle Re-Interpreted: New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators. London: 103–23.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. (2016). ‘Proclus, commentaire perdu sur la Palinodie du Phèdre: vestiges byzantins’. In: L’héritage aristotélicien. Textes inédits de l'Antiquité. Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée. Paris: 473561.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. (2018). La jeune fille et la sphère: études sur Empédocle. Paris.Google Scholar
Rashed, M. & Auffret, Th. (2014). ‘Aristote, Métaphysique A 6, 988a 7–14, Eudore d’Alexandrie et l’histoire ancienne du texte de la Métaphysique’. In: Brockmann, Ch., Deckers, D., Koch, L. & Valente, S. (eds.) Handschriften- und Textforschung heute. Zur Überlieferung der griechischen Literatur: Festschrift für Dieter Harlfinger aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages. Wiesbaden: 5584.Google Scholar
Reid, J. (1885). M. Tulli Ciceronis Academica: The Text Revised and Explained. London.Google Scholar
Remes, P. & Slaveva-Griffin, S. (2014a). ‘Introduction: Neoplatonism Today’. In: Remes, & Slaveva-Griffin, 2014b: 1–10.Google Scholar
Remes, P. & Slaveva-Griffin, S. (eds.) (2014b). The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism. London & New York.Google Scholar
Renaud, F. & Tarrant, H. (eds.) (2015). The Platonic Alcibiades I: The Dialogue and Its Ancient Reception. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (1999). Demiurge and Providence. Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato’s Timaeus. Turnhout.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. (2007). ‘Calcidius on God’. In: Bonazzi, & Helmig, 2007: 243–58.Google Scholar
Reydams-Schils, G. & Ferrari, F. (2014). ‘Middle Platonism and Its Relation to Stoicism and the Peripatetic Tradition’. In: Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014b: 40–51.Google Scholar
Richards, H. (1901). ‘On a Greek Adverb of Place’. Classical Review 15: 442–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, G.M.A. (1965). The Portraits of the Greeks. London.Google Scholar
Riedweg, Ch. (1987). Mysterienterminologie bei Platon, Philon und Klemens von Alexandrien. Berlin & New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedweg, Ch. (1997). ‘“Pythagoras hinterliess keine einzige Schrift”. Ein Irrtum?Museum Helveticum 54: 6592.Google Scholar
Riginos, A.S. (1976). Platonica: The Anecdotes Concerning the Life and Writings of Plato. Leiden.Google Scholar
Rohde, E. (1872). ‘Die Quellen des Jamblichus in seiner Biographie des Pythagoras’. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 27: 2362.Google Scholar
Romano, F. (1985). Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica. Catania.Google Scholar
Runia, D.T. (1986). Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Leiden & New York & Cologne.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runia, D.T. (2001). Philo of Alexandria. On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses. Leiden, New York & Cologne.Google Scholar
Runia, D.T. & Share, M. (eds.) (2008). Proclus. Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Vol. II.2, Proclus on the Causes of the Cosmos and its Creation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rutherford, R.B. (1995). The Art of Plato. London.Google Scholar
Sambursky, S. (1959). Physics of the Stoics. London.Google Scholar
Schibli, H. (1993). ‘Xenocrates’ Daimons and the Irrational Soul’. Classical Quarterly 43: 143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, M. (2012). ‘Antiochus on Social Virtue’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 173–87.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (ed.) (2013). Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the I century bc. New Directions for Philosophy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schofield, M. (ed.) (2014). ‘Archytas’. In: Huffman, 2014b: 69–87.Google Scholar
Schoppe, C. (1994). Plutarchs Interpretation der Ideenlehre Platons. Münster & Hamburg.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1981). ‘The End of the Academy’. Phronesis 26: 6775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (1982). ‘The Stoic Criterion of Identity’. Phronesis 27: 259–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (1985). ‘The Stoic Theory of Universals’. In: Epp, R.H. (ed.) Recovering the Stoics. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 23, Supplement: 87–92.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1989). ‘Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World’. In: Griffin, & Barnes, 1989: 97–119.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1992). ‘Sextus Empiricus and the Atomist Criteria of Truth’. Elenchos 13: 1956.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1997). ‘Plato’s Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition’. In: Griffin, & Barnes, 1997: 110–29.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (1999). ‘The Stoic-Platonist Debate on Kathēkonta. In Ierodiakonou, K. (ed.) Topics in Stoic Philosophy. Oxford: 128–52.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (2002a). ‘The Origins of Stoic God’. In: Frede, D. & Laks, A. (eds.) Traditions of Theology. Leiden: 4183.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (2002b). The Midwife of Platonism. Text and Subtext in Plato’s Theaetetus, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (2003a). Plato’s Cratylus. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (2003b). ‘The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus’. In: Inwood, B. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. Cambridge: 732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (2003c). ‘Philodemus and the Decentralisation of Philosophy’. Cronache Ercolanesi 33: 3141.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (ed.) (2012a). The Philosophy of Antiochus. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (2012b). ‘Antiochus as Historian of Philosophy’. In: Sedley, 2012a: 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedley, D. (2017). ‘Divinization’. In: Destrée, P. & Giannopoulou, Z. (eds.) Plato’s Symposium: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: 66107.Google Scholar
Sedley, D. (2019). ‘The Timaeus as Vehicle for Platonic Doctrine’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 56: 4571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segonds, A.Ph. (ed.) (1985). Proclus. Sur le premier Alcibiade de Platon, Vol. 1. Paris.Google Scholar
Sharples, R.W. & Sorabji, R. (eds.) (2007). Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 bc–200 ad. London.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (1980). Studies on the 5th and 6th Essays of Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic. Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A. (2013). ‘Proclus’ Place in the Reception of Plato’s Republic. In: Sheppard, A. (ed.) Ancient Approaches to Plato’s Republic. London: 107–15.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (2014). The Poetics of Phantasia. London.Google Scholar
Sheppard, A. (Forthcoming). ‘Allegory, Metaphysics, Theology: Homeric Reception in Athenian Neoplatonism’. In: Manolea, C.-P. (ed.) The Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Homer from the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity. Leiden.Google Scholar
Sider, D. & Obbink, D. (eds.) (2013). Doctrine and Doxography: Studies on Heraclitus and Pythagoras. Berlin & Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonetti, E.G. (2017). A Perfect Medium? Oracular Divination in the Thought of Plutarch. Leuven.Google Scholar
Siorvanes, L. (1996). Proclus: Neoplatonic Philosophy and Science. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (ed.) (1992). Porphyrii Philosophi fragmenta: Fragmenta Arabica David Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart & Leipzig.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (ed.) (2012). ‘The Significance of “Physics” in Porphyry: The Problem of Body and Matter’. In: Wilberding, & Horn, 2012: 30–43.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (ed.) (2004). The Philosophy of the Commentators 200–600 ad. A Sourcebook, Vol. 1: Psychology. London.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (ed.) (2014). ‘The Alexandrian Classrooms Excavated and Sixth-Century Philosophy Teaching’. In: Remes, & Slaveva-Griffin, 2014b: 30–9.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E. (2010). ‘Presocratici scettici? Assunti genealogici nel Varro di Cicerone’. In: Giombini, S. & Marcacci, F. (eds.) Il quinto secolo. Studi di filosofia antica in onore di Livio Rossetti. Passignano sul Trasimeno: 235–46.Google Scholar
Staab, G. (2009). ‘Das Kennzeichen des Neuen Pythagoreismus innerhalb der kaiserzeitlichen Platoninterpretation: “Pythagoreischer” Dualismus und Einprinzipienlehre im Einklang’. In: Bonazzi, & Opsomer, 2009: 55–88.Google Scholar
Staab, G. (2014). ‘Der hymnische Nachruf des Proklos auf seinen Lehrer Syrianos (IG II/III2 13451) im Lichte des Athener Neuplatonismus’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 190: 8196.Google Scholar
Steel, C. (2003). ‘Why Should We Prefer Plato’s Timaeus to Aristotle’s Physics? Proclus’ Critique of Aristotle’s Causal Explanation of the World’. In: Sharples, R.W. & Sheppard, A. (eds.) Ancient Approaches to Plato’s Timaeus. London: 175–87.Google Scholar
Steel, C. et al. (eds.) (2007–2009). Proclus: In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria. 3 vols. Oxford.Google Scholar
Syme, R. (1972). ‘Fraud and Imposture’. In: von Fritz, K. (ed.) Pseudepigrapha I. Vandœuvres & Geneva: 117.Google Scholar
Szlezàk, Th.A. (1972). Pseudo-Archytas über Die Kategorien. Berlin & New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarán, L. (ed.) (1981). Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary. Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarán, L. (1999). ‘Heraclitus: The River-fragments and Their Implications’. Elenchos 20: 952 = in Collected Papers (1962–1999). Leiden 2001: 126–67.Google Scholar
Tarrant, H. (1985). Scepticism or Platonism? The Philosophy of the Fourth Academy. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Tarrant, H. (2000). Plato’s First Interpreters. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Tarrant, H. (2004). ‘Must Commentators Know Their Sources? Proclus In Timaeum and Numenius’. In: Adamson, et al. 2004: 175–90.Google Scholar
Tarrant, H. (2007). ‘Antiochus: A New Beginning?’ In: Sharples, & Sorabji, 2007: Vol. II, 317–32.Google Scholar
Tarrant, H. et al. (eds.) (2018). The Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato. Leiden, Boston & Cologne.Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. (1961). An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. Åbo.Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. (1962). ‘Okkelos, Archytas and Plato’. Eranos 60: 836.Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. (ed.) (1965). The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period. Åbo.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy W. (1895). A Glossary of Greek Birds. Oxford.Google Scholar
Tieleman, T. (2007). ‘Panaetius’ Place in the History of Stoicism with Special Reference to his Moral Psychology’. In: Ioppolo, & Sedley, 2007: 103–41.Google Scholar
Tornau, Ch. (2006). ‘Der Eros und das Gute bei Plotin und Proklos’. In: Perkams, & Piccione, 2006: 201–29.Google Scholar
Trapp, M. (2000). ‘Plato in Dio’. In: Swain, S. (ed.) Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters, and Philosophy. Oxford: 213–39.Google Scholar
Trouillard, J. (1958). ‘Agir par son être même, la causalité selon Proclus’. Revue des sciences religieuses 118: 347–57.Google Scholar
Tsouni, G. (2018). ‘The Emergence of Platonic and Aristotelian Authority in the First Century bce’. In: Bryan, et al. 2018: 263–77.Google Scholar
Tsouni, G. (2019). Antiochus of Ascalon and Peripatetic Ethics. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulacco, A. (2017). Pseudopythagorica Dorica. I trattati di argomento metafisico, logico ed epistemologico attribuiti ad Archita e a Brontino. Berlin & New York.Google Scholar
Ulacco, A. & Opsomer, J. (2014). ‘Elements and Elemental Properties in Timaeus Locrus’. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 157: 154206.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R.M. (2016). ‘Theurgy in the Context of Proclus’ Philosophy’. In: d’Hoine, & Martijn, 2016: 223–39.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R.M. (2017). ‘Proclus and Damascius on φιλοτιμία: The Neoplatonic Psychology of a Political Emotion’. Philosophie antique 17: 149–65.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, R.M. (Forthcoming). ‘Imitation and Self-examination: The Later Neoplatonists on the Platonic Dialogue as Moral Education through Visualisation’. In: Xenophontos, S. & Marmodoro, A. (eds.) The Reception of Greek Ethics in Late Antiquity and Byzantium. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vander Waerdt, P. (1989). ‘Colotes and the Epicurean Refutation of Skepticism’. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 30: 225–67.Google Scholar
Van Nuffelen, P. (2011). Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, J. (2002). ‘Socratic Scepticism in Plutarch’s Adversus Colotem’. Elenchos 23: 333–56.Google Scholar
Westerink, L.G. (ed.) (1966). Olympiodorus. Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Westerink, L.G. (ed.) (1970). Olympiodori in Platonis Gorgiam commentaria. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Westerink, L.G. (ed.) (1990). Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon. Paris.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. (1969). ‘Ammonius on the Delphic E’, Classical Quarterly 19: 185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, J. (1984). Studies in Platonism and Patristic Thought. London.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. (ed.) (1990). Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon. Paris.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. (2000). ‘Harpocration d’Argos’. In: Goulet, R. (ed.) Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques Vol. III. Paris: 503–4.Google Scholar
Wilberding, J. (2008). ‘Automatic Action in Plotinus’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 34: 373407.Google Scholar
Wilberding, J. & Horn, Ch. (eds.) (2012). Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R.J. (2006). ‘Aspects of Iconography in Romano-British Mosaics: The Rudston “Aquatic” Scene and the Brading Astronomer Revisited’. Britannia 37: 295336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wycherley, R.E. (1962). ‘Peripatos: The Athenian Philosophical Scene-II’. Greece & Rome 9: 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zambon, M. (2002). Porphyre et le moyen platonisme. Paris.Google Scholar
Zanker, P. (1995). The Mask of Socrates (English translation). Berkeley.Google Scholar
Zhmud, L. (2012). Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhmud, L. (2019). ‘What Is Pythagorean in the Pseudo-Pythagorean Literature?’. Philologus 163: 7294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar