| Title | Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
| Pages | 155-183 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
| Translator(s) |
| This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides’ most celebrated legacy—the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides’ special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.) The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions. To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study. Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it. Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position. In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth. Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo. In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.” Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations. So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways. [conclusion p. 155-158] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2606,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides\u2019 special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity\u2019s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Publication Place | London - New York |
| Publisher | Routledge |
| Series | Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities |
| Volume | 15 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
| Translator(s) |
| Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M1J1UpbWT682j4V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1501","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1501,"authors_free":[{"id":2603,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2605,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion"},"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M1J1UpbWT682j4V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 107-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
| Translator(s) |
| The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"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}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","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 | Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
| Pages | 75-90 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
| Translator(s) |
| Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty. Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"929","_score":null,"_source":{"id":929,"authors_free":[{"id":1373,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}},{"id":1374,"entry_id":929,"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":1832,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"},"abstract":"Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere\u2014whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle\u2019s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings\u2014and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus\u2019 assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":929,"section_of":31,"pages":"75-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":31,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 171-189 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
| After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life. Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function. The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover. Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"943","_score":null,"_source":{"id":943,"authors_free":[{"id":1404,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}},{"id":1405,"entry_id":943,"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":1406,"entry_id":943,"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":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"},"abstract":"After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus\u2019 doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle\u2019s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.\r\n\r\nHere, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus\u2019 retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus\u2019 Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.\r\n\r\nThe only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration\u2014which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time\u2014the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, refers to Eudemus\u2019 Physics far more often than to Theophrastus\u2019 writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","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":943,"section_of":287,"pages":"171-189","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":[2002]}
| Title | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | New Jersey |
| Publisher | Transaction Publisher |
| Series | Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities |
| Volume | 11 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
| 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. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"287","_score":null,"_source":{"id":287,"authors_free":[{"id":356,"entry_id":287,"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":1833,"entry_id":287,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Eudemus of Rhodes","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus of Rhodes"},"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.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"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":{"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},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | Stuttgart |
| Publisher | Franz Steiner Verlag |
| Series | Die Philosophie der Antike |
| Volume | 14 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
| Translator(s) |
| The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"31","_score":null,"_source":{"id":31,"authors_free":[{"id":35,"entry_id":31,"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":36,"entry_id":31,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","main_title":{"title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier"},"abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | New Jersey |
| Publisher | Transaction Publisher |
| Series | Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities |
| Volume | 11 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
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. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"287","_score":null,"_source":{"id":287,"authors_free":[{"id":356,"entry_id":287,"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":1833,"entry_id":287,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Eudemus of Rhodes","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus of Rhodes"},"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.","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"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":{"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},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Eudemus of Rhodes"]}
| Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 107-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
| Translator(s) |
The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"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}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","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":["Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"]}
| Title | Eudemus’ Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 171-189 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Bodnár, István M. |
| Translator(s) |
After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus’ doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle’s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life. Here, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus’ retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus’ Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function. The only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration—which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time—the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover. Accordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, refers to Eudemus’ Physics far more often than to Theophrastus’ writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"943","_score":null,"_source":{"id":943,"authors_free":[{"id":1404,"entry_id":943,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}},{"id":1405,"entry_id":943,"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":1406,"entry_id":943,"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":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"},"abstract":"After evaluating the testimony about Eudemus\u2019 doctrine concerning the unmoved prime movers, it should be stated that all the testimonies affirm that Eudemus upheld Aristotle\u2019s doctrine of prime movers. This gains significance given that recent interpreters of Theophrastus argue that Theophrastus rejected this Aristotelian doctrine, attributing the motion of the heavens to the result of the souls of the spheres, and possibly also to the element composing these spheres. If this were the case, one might be tempted to draw a contrast between the provincial conservatism of Eudemus, who returned to his native Rhodes after Aristotle\u2019s death, and the cosmopolitan innovative spirit of Theophrastus, who remained in the intellectually vibrant climate of Athens until the end of his life.\r\n\r\nHere, I cannot elaborate in detail why I think such a contrast is untenable, but I can indicate one fundamental reason for Theophrastus\u2019 retention of the Aristotelian unmoved movers. The most important consideration comes from Theophrastus\u2019 Metaphysics. That short treatise examines, from beginning to end, the way in which the different domains of the universe are integrated and claims, in an Aristotelian vein, that there must be contact or connection (synaphe) between these domains; otherwise, the universe would resemble a series of unconnected, episodic realms. This claim, combined with the testimony that Theophrastus admitted supra-physical entities, requires that these entities be integrated with the operation of the cosmos. Unless some other task is explicitly assigned to them, the orthodox Aristotelian role of unmoved movers remains the most likely candidate for their function.\r\n\r\nThe only alternative might be to claim that these supra-sensible entities are identical with the souls of the celestial spheres. However, this will not suffice, as the mode of operation of the unmoved mover is described in orthodox Aristotelian terms as the effect of the nature of the object of desire, while the role of the celestial souls is consistently described as the subject of desire and aspiration. Unless something can be the object of its own aspiration\u2014which is inadmissible on Peripatetic grounds, since that would require the same entity to possess and be bereft of the same characteristic at the same time\u2014the motion of the celestial spheres necessitates an external unmoved mover.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, if Theophrastus raised difficulties in the context of an Aristotelian account of celestial motion to elucidate and elaborate the original Aristotelian position, his project was not fundamentally different from the one pursued by Eudemus in his Physics. The fact that Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, refers to Eudemus\u2019 Physics far more often than to Theophrastus\u2019 writings likely reflects the nature of these writings rather than any significant difference in the philosophical outlook of these authors. [conclusion p. 187-189]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/oHvrWIwr97HgFIY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","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":943,"section_of":287,"pages":"171-189","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":["Eudemus\u2019 Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli"]}
| Title | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Publication Place | London - New York |
| Publisher | Routledge |
| Series | Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities |
| Volume | 15 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
| Translator(s) |
Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/M1J1UpbWT682j4V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1501","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1501,"authors_free":[{"id":2603,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2605,"entry_id":1501,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion"},"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M1J1UpbWT682j4V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion"]}
| Title | Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion |
| Pages | 155-183 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | , Todd, Robert B. , Bowen, Alan C. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Pender, Elizabeth E. |
| Translator(s) |
This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides’ most celebrated legacy—the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides’ special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.) The passages translated here (T1–6) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant “fragments” of modern editions (65C, 66–69, and 71 in volume XIV = 104–108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein’s and Kidd’s edition of Posidonius’ fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by //...// ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions. To be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity’s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study. Information on this theory of the Earth’s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412–485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490–560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it. Even the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius’ citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (T4–6), and one in Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position. In what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy’s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato’s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8–C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides’ theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth. Finally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5–6) appended to discussions of Aristotle’s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo. In an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides’ theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges—first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)—is a methodological rationale for Heraclides’ theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, “to save the phenomena.” Yet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides’ theory of the Earth’s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides’ theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations. So, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides’ theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways. [conclusion p. 155-158] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2YB813ju2mFR0oM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1500","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1500,"authors_free":[{"id":2604,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2606,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":558,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","free_first_name":"Elizabeth E.","free_last_name":"Pender","norm_person":{"id":558,"first_name":"Elizabeth E.","last_name":"Pender","full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122513010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2607,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":340,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Todd, Robert B.","free_first_name":"Robert B.","free_last_name":"Todd","norm_person":{"id":340,"first_name":"Robert B.","last_name":"Todd","full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129460788","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2608,"entry_id":1500,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities","main_title":{"title":"Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"},"abstract":"This chapter will present annotated translations of the texts and contexts that constitute the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 most celebrated legacy\u2014the theory that the Earth rotates daily on its axis from west to east. Its movement was inferred from the observable motions of the fixed stars, with these being explained as the apparent motions of an immobile celestial sphere. (Evidence for Heraclides\u2019 special theories of the motions of Mercury and Venus will be discussed in the next two chapters: first by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd, and then by Paul Keyser.)\r\n\r\nThe passages translated here (T1\u20136) go well beyond the brief reports found in the relevant \u201cfragments\u201d of modern editions (65C, 66\u201369, and 71 in volume XIV = 104\u2013108 and 110 W). These fragments, drawn from secondary reports, consist only of the immediate context of passages in which Heraclides is named, in line with a practice probably best known from Edelstein\u2019s and Kidd\u2019s edition of Posidonius\u2019 fragments. But such limited parcels of evidence (enclosed in our translations by \/\/...\/\/ ) cannot indicate why Heraclides was mentioned within larger expositions.\r\n\r\nTo be sure, such collections of source material are useful, but they have to be selective for pragmatic reasons and therefore also need to be complemented by the sort of project undertaken here, particularly where the focus is on one of antiquity\u2019s most famous anticipations of modern cosmology, and where the contexts for the earliest references to it reveal the historical and theoretical framework within which it was received. To the authors in question, Heraclides may have been just a footnote, but the texts to which his theory was attached amply repay careful study.\r\n\r\nInformation on this theory of the Earth\u2019s rotation first appears in a lost treatise of the Stoic Posidonius (1st c. B.C.) (T2), which is roughly contemporary with a doxographical report (T1) attributed to Aetius. What is known of the content and purpose of this theory is only as much as Posidonius and subsequent authors (Geminus [1st c. B.C.], who cites Posidonius, Alexander of Aphrodisias [fl. ca. 200 A.D.], who cites Geminus, and later Proclus [412\u2013485 A.D.] and Simplicius [ca. 490\u2013560 A.D.]) have allowed us to derive from the contexts into which they introduced it.\r\n\r\nEven the doxographical report is interpretive, since by implicitly marginalizing Heraclides as one of a group that deviated from the consensus that the Earth was immobile, it adopts the same general attitude found in all the other reports. Thus, the Posidonian report (T2), known from Simplicius\u2019 citation from Alexander in his commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, dismisses Heraclides out of hand, while three reports in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo (T4\u20136), and one in Proclus\u2019 commentary on Plato\u2019s Timaeus (T3), occur within exegetical passages in which Heraclides serves only to identify an alternative and unacceptable position.\r\n\r\nIn what follows, we shall first couple the Posidonian report with a vestigial version of it in Ptolemy\u2019s Almagest (T2a), on which Simplicius (T5 and T6) later drew. There follow two closely related exegetical discussions of Plato\u2019s description of the Earth at Timaeus 40B8\u2013C3 by Proclus (T3) and Simplicius (T4), where Heraclides\u2019 theory exemplifies the unorthodox view that this passage refers to a moving Earth.\r\n\r\nFinally, there are two reports by Simplicius (T5\u20136) appended to discussions of Aristotle\u2019s account of the mobility and stability of the Earth in the De caelo.\r\n\r\nIn an Afterword, we argue that since this body of evidence tells us virtually nothing about the original form and scope of Heraclides\u2019 theory, it offers an insecure basis for reconstruction. Instead, what most significantly emerges\u2014first in Posidonius and then in Ptolemy and Simplicius (especially T5 and T6)\u2014is a methodological rationale for Heraclides\u2019 theory as a hypothesis designed, to use a famous phrase found in several of these texts, \u201cto save the phenomena.\u201d\r\n\r\nYet such a rationale should not be projected back to Heraclides: far from offering access to the thought of a theorist of the fourth century B.C., the contexts for the evidence for Heraclides\u2019 theory of the Earth\u2019s motion primarily reveal philosophical preoccupations about science and its relation to philosophy that became pressing only in the first century B.C. and were still at issue in the sixth century A.D. The sheer oddity of Heraclides\u2019 theory made it a welcome, though peripheral, device for articulating these preoccupations.\r\n\r\nSo, whatever its attraction to modern historians of science taking a longer view, Heraclides\u2019 theory of a rotating Earth primarily helped later ancient science address issues involving the status of scientific theory and, in particular, the problems raised by an awareness that astronomical phenomena could be explained in a variety of ways.\r\n[conclusion p. 155-158]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2YB813ju2mFR0oM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":558,"full_name":"Pender, Elizabeth E.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":340,"full_name":"Todd, Robert B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1500,"section_of":1501,"pages":"155-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1501,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Heraclides of Pontus: Discussion","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Heraclides of Pontus hailed from the shores of the Black Sea. He studied with Aristotle in Plato's Academy, and became a respected member of that school. During Plato's third trip to Sicily, Heraclides served as head of the Academy and was almost elected its head on the death of Speusippus.Heraclides' interests were diverse. He wrote on the movements of the planets and the basic matter of the universe. He adopted a materialistic theory of soul, which he considered immortal and subject to reincarnation. He discussed pleasure, and like Aristotle, he commented on the Homeric poems. In addition, he concerned himself with religion, music and medical issues. None of Heraclides' works have survived intact, but in antiquity his dialogues were much admired and often pillaged for sententiae and the like.The contributions presented here comment on Heraclides' life and thought. They include La Tradizione Papirologica di Eraclide Pontico by Tiziano Dorandi, Heraclides' Intellectual Context by Jorgen Mejer, and Heraclides of Pontus and the Philosophical Dialogue by Matthew Fox. There is also discussion of Heraclides' understanding of pleasure and of the human soul: Heraclides on Pleasure by Eckart Schutrumpf and Heraclides on the Soul and Its Ancient Readers by Inna Kupreeva. In addition, there are essays that address Heraclides' physics and astronomical theories: Unjointed Masses: A Note on Heraclides Physical Theory by Robert W. Sharples; Heliocentrism in or out of Heraclides by Paul T. Keyser, The Reception of Heraclides' Theory of the Rotation of the Earth from Posidonius to Simplicius: Texts, Contexts and Continuities by Robert B. Todd and Alan C. Bowen, and Heraclides of Pontus on the Motions of Venus and Mercury by Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd. Finally, there are essays that view Heraclides from the stand point of ancient medicine, literary criticism and musical theory: Heraclides on Diseases and on the Woman Who Did Not Breathe by [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/S3mQv3IiJFEaVfY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1501,"pubplace":"London - New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"15","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Heraclides on the Rotation of the Earth: Texts, Contexts and Continuities"]}
| Title | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | Stuttgart |
| Publisher | Franz Steiner Verlag |
| Series | Die Philosophie der Antike |
| Volume | 14 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William. W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
| Translator(s) |
The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"31","_score":null,"_source":{"id":31,"authors_free":[{"id":35,"entry_id":31,"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":36,"entry_id":31,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","main_title":{"title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier"},"abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","btype":4,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier"]}
| Title | Theophrastus’ De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier |
| Pages | 75-90 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bodnár, István M. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Wöhrle, Georg |
| Translator(s) |
Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere—whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle’s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings—and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty. Accordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus’ assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"929","_score":null,"_source":{"id":929,"authors_free":[{"id":1373,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"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}},{"id":1374,"entry_id":929,"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":1832,"entry_id":929,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":8,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","free_first_name":"Georg","free_last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","norm_person":{"id":8,"first_name":"Georg","last_name":"W\u00f6hrle","full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172458277","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"},"abstract":"Any account of the short Theophrastean treatise On Fire needs to address sensitive issues about the heavenly sphere\u2014whether Theophrastus upholds Aristotle\u2019s convictions about aither, a special substance that performs celestial revolutions as its natural motion, analogous to the way sublunary elements perform their rectilinear descents and risings\u2014and then about the status of fire itself in comparison to the other three sublunary elements. Needless to say, the two questions cannot be treated in isolation: proposals about the first query as a principle have direct bearing on the solution of the second difficulty.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, in the following sections, I shall first discuss what conclusions we can draw from the meager evidence of the introductory chapters of De igne regarding Theophrastus\u2019 assumptions about the makeup of the celestial domain. In the closing sections of this paper, I shall then turn to some larger issues about the reforms or readjustments of a Peripatetic theory of elements that this treatise appears to adumbrate or at least presuppose. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lPX6TbzY8iv53Ki","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":8,"full_name":"W\u00f6hrle, Georg ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":929,"section_of":31,"pages":"75-90","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":31,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Akten der 3. Tagungder Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002d","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"The opuscula of Theophrastus are no fragments; rather they are short treatises which have survived in manuscript form. The subject matter covers metaphysics, psychology, and natural science. Several of the treatises have never been properly edited or translated into English. All are in need of the new and in-depth attention. [preface]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MPYkoik1OlP0aN6","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":31,"pubplace":"Stuttgart","publisher":"Franz Steiner Verlag","series":"Die Philosophie der Antike","volume":"14","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Theophrastus\u2019 De Igne: Orthodoxy, Reform and Readjustment in the Doctrine of Elements"]}
| 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"]}