| Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 127-156 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"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":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 127-156 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"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":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}