{"_index":"sire","_id":"779","_score":null,"_source":{"id":779,"authors_free":[{"id":1143,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1144,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\"","main_title":{"title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\""},"abstract":"We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with \"Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg.\" The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":779,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"54","issue":"1","pages":"78-84"}},"sort":[2001]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"162","_score":null,"_source":{"id":162,"authors_free":[{"id":2405,"entry_id":162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2406,"entry_id":162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":30,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Runia, David T.","free_first_name":"David T.","free_last_name":"Runia","norm_person":{"id":30,"first_name":"David T.","last_name":"Runia","full_name":"Runia, David T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/113181515","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2764,"entry_id":162,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pieter W. van der Horst","free_first_name":"Pieter W. ","free_last_name":"van der Horst","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday","main_title":{"title":"Polyhistor. Studies in the history and historiography of ancient philosophy: presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his sixtieth birthday"},"abstract":"During the past three decades Jaap Mansfeld, Professor of Ancient Philosophy in Utrecht, has built up a formidable reputation as a leading scholar in his field. His work has concentrated on the Presocratics, Hellenistic Philosophy, the sources of our knowledge of ancient philosophy (esp. doxography) and the history of scholarship.\r\nIn honour of his sixtieth birthday, colleagues and friends have contributed a collection of articles which represent the state of the art in the study of the history of ancient philosophy and frequently concentrate on subjects in which the honorand has made important discoveries.\r\nThe 22 contributors include M. Baltes, J. Barnes, J. Brunschwig, W.M. Calder III, J. Dillon, P.L. Donini, J. Glucker, A.A. Long, L.M. de Rijk, D. Sedley, P. Schrijvers, and M. Vegetti. The volume concludes with a complete bibliography of Jaap Mansfeld's scholarly work so far. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"1996","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/h3vavPv0hEyKsdh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":30,"full_name":"Runia, David T.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":162,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"72","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1996]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1159","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1159,"authors_free":[{"id":1735,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2347,"entry_id":1159,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions","main_title":{"title":"Problems in Aristotle's Theory of Place and Early Peripatetic Reactions"},"abstract":"In the present chapter, I have discussed several early Peripatetic attempts to come to terms with Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. These were studied against the background of Aristotle\u2019s theory of place itself and the obscurities and problems it involved. As was already noted in the previous chapter, Aristotle\u2019s dialectical discussion in Phys. A exhibited a number of rough edges and loose ends. Thus, he nowhere explicitly reconciled his own two claims that place should have some power and that it should not be counted as one of the four familiar causes.\r\n\r\nIn section 5.1, it was shown, or so I hope, that it is possible to reconstruct his position by a closer study of the dialectical structure of the discussion of topos in Phys. A and by adducing a number of other relevant passages from elsewhere in the Physics and the De Caelo. In the course of this chapter, it became clear that the resulting picture of the non-dynamic character of Aristotelian place was confirmed by the few remarks on this issue that have come down to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus.\r\n\r\nTwo other problems left open by Aristotle\u2014viz., the interrelated problems of the immobility of place and its ontological status\u2014seem to have been more difficult to solve, as I have tried to show in section 5.2. They were discussed\u2014together with a number of other problems, such as the problem of the emplacement of the heavens\u2014by both Eudemus and Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt appears\u2014if we are allowed to draw some general conclusions from the scanty fragments that have come down to us\u2014that each of these two pupils of Aristotle continued his master\u2019s work in his own way: Theophrastus by continuing Aristotle\u2019s critical dialectical approach, which involved his feeling free to sometimes add some rather radically alternative suggestions, and Eudemus by mainly filling out Aristotle\u2019s own suggestions by adducing material from elsewhere in his work or by rephrasing Aristotle\u2019s arguments in clearer terms.\r\n\r\nBut even if Eudemus appears to have been the more \u2018orthodox\u2019 of the two, we should not overestimate the strength and the extent of Theophrastus\u2019 dissent from Aristotle. It appears to have consisted mainly in his leaving the aporia of fr. 146 unanswered while putting forward the contents of fr. 149 as hardly more than a suggested alternative. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in a way, the conception of place as a relation between bodies\u2014suggested in fr. 149\u2014may be regarded as constituting a sensible elaboration rather than a complete rejection of the Aristotelian position.\r\n\r\nFor insofar as it still defines the place of a thing in terms of its surroundings rather than in terms of a SidaxTijxa (whether in the Platonic or in the atomist sense), it remains on the Aristotelian side of the line drawn by Aristotle himself at Phys. A 209b1-7.\u00b9\u2074\u2074 And unlike the alternative proposed by Strato, this conception of place could, in principle, be taken over ceteris paribus, leaving the rest of the system of Aristotelian physics intact.\r\n\r\nAt the same time, it should be clear that Theophrastus\u2019 solution, however hesitantly put forward, is far superior from a systematic point of view. It might even be claimed that it transforms Aristotle\u2019s (and Eudemus\u2019) rather na\u00efve theory of place (focusing on the location of individual substances) into what we might call a theory of space (in principle allowing an account of the sum total of spatial relations within the cosmos).\u00b9\u2074\u2075\r\n\r\nThis brings us to the curious fact that this novel conception of place did not have a wider appeal. As we saw, we actually have to wait for Damascius to take up Theophrastus\u2019 suggestion. This is probably partly due to the fact that Theophrastus omitted to elaborate his point and that, as a consequence, it did not become widely known. In addition, the relational conception of place suggested by Theophrastus, if worked out properly, was much more technical and much farther removed from everyday usage and ordinary experience than its contemporary rivals.\r\n\r\nWe need only look at Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos and the way in which it was taken seriously in antiquity (and beyond) to see to what extent lack of technicality and closeness to common thinking and speaking were commonly counted as virtues.\r\n\r\nThis, in turn, leads us to the question of the influence of (Eudemus and) Theophrastus in general. To some extent, the doubts, criticisms, and refinements of Aristotle\u2019s theory put forward by Eudemus and Theophrastus may have proved seminal. At any rate, later critics of the Aristotelian position, such as Simplicius, found it worthwhile to refer to their ideas or to add quotations from their work.\r\n\r\nAnd the mere fact that Aristotle\u2019s theory of place had come under attack within the Peripatos and that even a relatively faithful pupil like Eudemus had felt obliged to advocate some changes may have encouraged the much bolder dissent of a philosopher like Strato of Lampsacus. Yet, it should be stressed that the precise extent of the influence of these early Peripatetics is impossible to determine.\u00b9\u2074\u2076\r\n\r\nAt any rate, there is no positive evidence that any of the later critics of Aristotle was directly influenced by Theophrastus or Eudemus, and it should be kept in mind that these critics probably did not even need their examples. Indeed, Aristotle himself provided enough ammunition\u2014for example, by failing to answer the question of the ontological status of place, by failing to provide a more technical account of immobility,\u00b9\u2074\u2077 and by attacking the most obvious rival view (place as a three-dimensional extension) with very unsatisfactory arguments. [conclusion p. 258-260]","btype":2,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JNlEob1OVl4sohO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1159,"section_of":232,"pages":"192-260","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":232,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"Concepts of space in Greek thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Algra1995c","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1995","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1995","abstract":"Concepts of Space in Greek Thought studies ancient Greek theories of physical space and place, in particular those of the classical and Hellenistic period. These theories are explained primarily with reference to the general philosophical or methodological framework within which they took shape. Special attention is paid to the nature and status of the sources. Two introductory chapters deal with the interrelations between various concepts of space and with Greek spatial terminology (including case studies of the Eleatics, Democritus and Epicurus). The remaining chapters contain detailed studies on the theories of space of Plato, Aristotle, the early Peripatetics and the Stoics.\r\nThe book is especially useful for historians of ancient physics, but may also be of interest to students of Aristotelian dialectic, ancient metaphysics, doxography, and medieval and early modern physics.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Goiwos39VOpY6H9","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":232,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 New York \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"65","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1995]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}