| Title | Some Problems in Anaximander |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1955 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1/2 |
| Pages | 21-38 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kirk, G.S. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| These considerations indicate that we are not entitled to automatically assume that prose works written in Ionia in the sixth or early fifth century were still available in their entirety to Theophrastus. In the case of Anaximander, I would suggest that what Theophrastus might have had in front of him was not a complete book but a collection of extracts, in which emphasis was laid upon astronomy, meteorology, and anthropogony rather than upon the nature and significance of to apeiron, which might always have seemed confusing. In respect to his arche, indeed, Anaximander must assuredly have been considered obsolete and unimportant by the end of the fifth century. The extant fragment could be quoted by Theophrastus, of course, because it really came among the cosmological-meteorological extracts. [introduction p. 38] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2A18YiMysdkpynh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"737","_score":null,"_source":{"id":737,"authors_free":[{"id":1100,"entry_id":737,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":216,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kirk, G.S.","free_first_name":"G.S.","free_last_name":"Kirk","norm_person":{"id":216,"first_name":"G. S.","last_name":"Kirk","full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Problems in Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Some Problems in Anaximander"},"abstract":"These considerations indicate that we are not entitled to automatically assume that prose works written in Ionia in the sixth or early fifth century were still available in their entirety to Theophrastus. In the case of Anaximander, I would suggest that what Theophrastus might have had in front of him was not a complete book but a collection of extracts, in which emphasis was laid upon astronomy, meteorology, and anthropogony rather than upon the nature and significance of to apeiron, which might always have seemed confusing.\r\n\r\nIn respect to his arche, indeed, Anaximander must assuredly have been considered obsolete and unimportant by the end of the fifth century. The extant fragment could be quoted by Theophrastus, of course, because it really came among the cosmological-meteorological extracts. [introduction p. 38]","btype":3,"date":"1955","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2A18YiMysdkpynh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":216,"full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":737,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"5","issue":"1\/2","pages":"21-38"}},"sort":[1955]}
| Title | Some Problems in Anaximander |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1955 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 1/2 |
| Pages | 21-38 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Kirk, G.S. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
These considerations indicate that we are not entitled to automatically assume that prose works written in Ionia in the sixth or early fifth century were still available in their entirety to Theophrastus. In the case of Anaximander, I would suggest that what Theophrastus might have had in front of him was not a complete book but a collection of extracts, in which emphasis was laid upon astronomy, meteorology, and anthropogony rather than upon the nature and significance of to apeiron, which might always have seemed confusing. In respect to his arche, indeed, Anaximander must assuredly have been considered obsolete and unimportant by the end of the fifth century. The extant fragment could be quoted by Theophrastus, of course, because it really came among the cosmological-meteorological extracts. [introduction p. 38] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2A18YiMysdkpynh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"737","_score":null,"_source":{"id":737,"authors_free":[{"id":1100,"entry_id":737,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":216,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Kirk, G.S.","free_first_name":"G.S.","free_last_name":"Kirk","norm_person":{"id":216,"first_name":"G. S.","last_name":"Kirk","full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Problems in Anaximander","main_title":{"title":"Some Problems in Anaximander"},"abstract":"These considerations indicate that we are not entitled to automatically assume that prose works written in Ionia in the sixth or early fifth century were still available in their entirety to Theophrastus. In the case of Anaximander, I would suggest that what Theophrastus might have had in front of him was not a complete book but a collection of extracts, in which emphasis was laid upon astronomy, meteorology, and anthropogony rather than upon the nature and significance of to apeiron, which might always have seemed confusing.\r\n\r\nIn respect to his arche, indeed, Anaximander must assuredly have been considered obsolete and unimportant by the end of the fifth century. The extant fragment could be quoted by Theophrastus, of course, because it really came among the cosmological-meteorological extracts. [introduction p. 38]","btype":3,"date":"1955","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2A18YiMysdkpynh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":216,"full_name":"Kirk, G. S.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":737,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"5","issue":"1\/2","pages":"21-38"}},"sort":["Some Problems in Anaximander"]}