| Title | Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Publication Place | Assen – Maastricht |
| Publisher | Van Gorcum |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld’s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander’s cosmos, the status of Parmenides’ human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus’ atoms. [offical abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"161","_score":null,"_source":{"id":161,"authors_free":[{"id":208,"entry_id":161,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld\u2019s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander\u2019s cosmos, the status of Parmenides\u2019 human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus\u2019 atoms. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":161,"pubplace":"Assen \u2013 Maastricht","publisher":"Van Gorcum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1990]}
| Title | Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1989 |
| Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
| Pages | 133-158 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter |
| Translator(s) |
| Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert. Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne. Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme. In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"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":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1989]}
| Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1988 |
| Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
| Pages | 92-117 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Translator(s) |
| Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
| Title | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 1988 |
| Publication Place | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain |
| Volume | 112 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1988]}
| Title | Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1982 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 125 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-24 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do. I wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to épater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either. The first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander "found in some manuscripts" (ἐν ταῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὗρον, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27–31), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 λαὸν-φρήσιν immediately after 240a11 διελῆλυθεν. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius’). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7–1020, 6, printed—as far as 1019, 9—by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33–240a17. Although scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn’t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y2jILmoDyxD389y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1108,"authors_free":[{"id":2070,"entry_id":1108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium","main_title":{"title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"},"abstract":"Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do.\r\n\r\nI wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to \u00e9pater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either.\r\n\r\nThe first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander \"found in some manuscripts\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27\u201331), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd-\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd immediately after 240a11 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius\u2019). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7\u20131020, 6, printed\u2014as far as 1019, 9\u2014by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33\u2013240a17.\r\n\r\nAlthough scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn\u2019t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y2jILmoDyxD389y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1108,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"125","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":[1982]}
| Title | Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1988 |
| Published in | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
| Pages | 92-117 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Translator(s) |
Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God’s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos’ Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism—namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3–4, and in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (pp. 22.22–23.30 Diels). Here, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes’ position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that “spherical” means “homogeneous” and “unmoved” means “beyond motion and rest,” i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs. The accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the “doxographical vulgate”—i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus’ lost Physikai doxai—knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus. This attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes’ God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus. It also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes’ doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus’ negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"931","_score":null,"_source":{"id":931,"authors_free":[{"id":1378,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1379,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1380,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1381,"entry_id":931,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception","main_title":{"title":"Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"},"abstract":"Students of Middle Platonism are familiar with the phenomenon that the accounts of the divine provided by various authors of the 2nd century CE strike one as incoherent. Qualifications according to the viae negationis, analogia, and eminentia, which to us seem incompatible to a degree, tend to coexist in a peaceful jumble. On the one hand, the essence or nature of God is described by means of a refusal to predicate any attributes whatsoever. Attributes withheld in this way may be arranged in polar pairs. On the other hand, God\u2019s existence as a supreme cause tends to be described in a positive way, for example, by means of varieties of the argumentum ex gradibus entium. The theology of chapter 10 of Alkinoos\u2019 Didaskalikos is a notorious instance of such a medley. That this is not only a problem from an anachronistic modern point of view becomes clear when we adduce important evidence neglected by students of Middle Platonism\u2014namely, the parallel accounts of the theology of Xenophanes to be found in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (hereafter MXG), chapters 3\u20134, and in Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (pp. 22.22\u201323.30 Diels).\r\n\r\nHere, God is said to be, on the one hand, eternal, one, homogeneous, spherical, limited, and unmoved, and, on the other, neither limited nor unlimited, and neither at rest nor in motion. Both pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius are aware that there is a problem here. The former dialectically exploits the contradiction between the negated pairs of polar opposites and some of the positive attributes to prove Xenophanes\u2019 position unacceptable. The latter resolves this contradiction by arguing that \u201cspherical\u201d means \u201chomogeneous\u201d and \u201cunmoved\u201d means \u201cbeyond motion and rest,\u201d i.e., he explains those positive attributes which clash with the negated polar pairs in terms of precisely these pairs.\r\n\r\nThe accounts in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius have, as a rule, puzzled students of Presocratic philosophy. What I would like to call the \u201cdoxographical vulgate\u201d\u2014i.e., the plurality of sources Diels (still followed by the majority of experts in the field) wanted, at least to the extent that they agree among themselves or with purported fragments of Theophrastus, to derive from Theophrastus\u2019 lost Physikai doxai\u2014knows nothing of the negated pairs of polar attributes. Yet Simplicius explicitly attributes these pairs to Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nThis attribution, as I argue elsewhere, should be accepted. What Theophrastus, following Aristotle (Metaphysics A 5.986b 19 ff.), meant was that Xenophanes was not clear about his one principle, neither committing himself to the view that it is limited nor to the view that it is unlimited, and neither stating clearly that it moves nor that it is at rest. It follows that the doxographical vulgate, which holds that Xenophanes\u2019 God not only is one and eternal but also homogeneous, limited, spherical, unmoved, and rational, does not derive from Theophrastus.\r\n\r\nIt also follows that the source from which the description of Xenophanes\u2019 doctrine in pseudo-Aristotle and Simplicius derives paradoxically combined the entirely positive account found in the doxographical vulgate with Theophrastus\u2019 negative non liquet. The motives that brought about this combination are one of the subjects of the present investigation. [introduction p. 92-93]","btype":2,"date":"1988","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wBb3nfQCrMnJw05","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":931,"section_of":337,"pages":"92-117","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":337,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"van_den_Broek1988","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1988","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1988","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception"]}
| Title | Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1982 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 125 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-24 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do. I wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to épater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either. The first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander "found in some manuscripts" (ἐν ταῖς ἀντιγράφοις εὗρον, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27–31), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 λαὸν-φρήσιν immediately after 240a11 διελῆλυθεν. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius’). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7–1020, 6, printed—as far as 1019, 9—by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33–240a17. Although scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn’t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/y2jILmoDyxD389y |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1108","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1108,"authors_free":[{"id":2070,"entry_id":1108,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium","main_title":{"title":"Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"},"abstract":"Of Zeno's four arguments against the reality of motion transmitted by Aristotle, the fourth, the so-called Stadium (Vors. 29 A 28), is perhaps the most difficult. The difficulties involved are of two sorts: philological problems on the one hand, questions of a philosophical nature on the other. In the present paper, I am concerned with the first sort, not the second, although I shall perhaps not be successful in keeping the latter out altogether. A study of the philosophical discussions to be found in the learned literature, however, has convinced me that the first problem to be solved is that of the interpretation of Aristotle's text. There is a general feeling that Aristotle, in reporting and arguing against Zeno's argument, somehow failed. I believe his report is sufficiently clear; although Aristotle's argument contra Zeno is not, perhaps, satisfactory in every respect, Zeno's original paradox can be found in his text. I shall attempt to show that, in order to find it, we must begin by taking both the topography of the stadium and the position of the bodies in it into account, which several recent reconstructions, however satisfactory they may appear to be in other respects, fail to do.\r\n\r\nI wish to start from a consideration concerned with a non-philosophical feature the four arguments against motion have in common: the fact that they are fun. They undoubtedly are very serious arguments, but they were also written in order to \u00e9pater le bourgeois. The first argument proves that a runner will never get to the end of the stadium: once he has got halfway, he still has to get halfway the remaining half, halfway the remaining quarter, and so on, in infinitum. The second proves that swift-footed Achilles will never catch up with the slowest thing on earth, because the distance in between, although constantly diminishing, forever remains proportionally the same. The third proves that a flying arrow, which occupies a place equal to its own size, is at rest, because it does not move at the place where it is, and not at the place where it is not either.\r\n\r\nThe first three arguments, then, are genuine and rather hilarious paradoxes. They reveal Zeno as a wit. To ask what is so funny about the fourth argument against motion, therefore, is a legitimate question. Yet I have hardly ever read an account of the fourth paradox which brought out the inevitable smile fetched by the others. Instead, one finds complicated discussions about infinite divisibility versus discrete or granular structure, and endless shufflings and reshufflings of the runners on the course. There are several reasons for this unfortunate situation, the most important of which, I believe, is that both ancient commentators (to judge from Simplicius' account) and modern scholars have failed to distinguish (or to distinguish sufficiently) between Zeno's paradox on the one hand and Aristotle's refutation on the other. Another reason is that Aristotle's text is plagued in parts with variae lectiones that seriously affect the meaning of the argument as a whole. Some of these readings enjoy the support of Simplicius, but this does not prove them right, for Simplicius points out one passage where Alexander of Aphrodisias followed a reading different from that accepted by himself and which, as he believes, Alexander \"found in some manuscripts\" (\u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f57\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, In Phys. 1017, 19). Furthermore, as Simplicius likewise tells us (In Phys. 1019, 27\u201331), Alexander proposed to interpolate Phys. Z 9, 240a15-16 \u03bb\u03b1\u1f78\u03bd-\u03c6\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd immediately after 240a11 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03bb\u1fc6\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd. Alexander, then, found it difficult to understand the argument of the text as transmitted (which, at at least one other point, differed from Simplicius\u2019). Simplicius' lengthy reconstruction of the fourth argument against motion and of Aristotle's critique thereof (In Phys. 1016, 7\u20131020, 6, printed\u2014as far as 1019, 9\u2014by Lee as T 36) appears to have no other authority than his own, for he differs from Alexander, and the only other person cited (Eudemus, Fr. 106 Wehrli) is only adduced for points which do not affect the interpretation of the more difficult parts of Phys. Z 9, 239b33\u2013240a17.\r\n\r\nAlthough scholars have dealt rather freely with Simplicius' commentary, using only those sections which fit their own views, it should be acknowledged that his reconstruction of the paradox, and especially his diagram of the stadium featuring three rows of runners, have been of crucial importance to the modern history of interpretation of Zeno's argument. I believe, however, that Simplicius (and perhaps Alexander as well) already made the fundamental mistake of failing to distinguish in the proper way between Zeno's paradox and Aristotle's refutation, although in Simplicius' case this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that he apparently noticed the joke of Zeno's argument (one doesn\u2019t know if Alexander did). We are not bound, then, to follow Simplicius all, or even half the way, and need not even accept his guidance as to the choice to be made among the variae lectiones. These different readings themselves, so it seems, reflect different ancient interpretations of Aristotle's exposition. In some manuscripts, interpretamenta may have got into the text (as at 240a6), or even have ousted other, more difficult readings (as at 240a11). [introduction p. 1-3]","btype":3,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/y2jILmoDyxD389y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1108,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"125","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Digging up a Paradox: A Philological Note on Zeno's Stadium"]}
| Title | Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1989 |
| Published in | Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos |
| Pages | 133-158 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Steinmetz, Peter |
| Translator(s) |
Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gründen beschränke, ist dabei der Passus über die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert. Zum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf Übereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios’ Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als nächstes aber hat er Luc. 119–121 über die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und über Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses Stück nicht auf Theophrast zurückgeführt werden könne. Aus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die über verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelskörpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schließlich 123 „Hiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt“ (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus …) usw. wieder als Beweis dafür angezogen, dass die doxographische Übersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme. In der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schließlich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadesschüler, sein müsse. Das Textstück über Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492–3). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"930","_score":null,"_source":{"id":930,"authors_free":[{"id":1375,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1376,"entry_id":930,"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":1377,"entry_id":930,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":378,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Steinmetz","norm_person":{"id":378,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Steinmetz","full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11891913X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?","main_title":{"title":"Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"},"abstract":"Unter Hinweis auf Cicero, Lucullus (= Academica priora II) 118 und 123, Tusculanae disputationes I 18 ff. und De natura deorum I 25 ff. hat Hermann Diels diese Frage bekanntlich bejaht. Die wichtigste Stelle, auf die ich mich aus mehreren Gr\u00fcnden beschr\u00e4nke, ist dabei der Passus \u00fcber die Prinzipien (Luc. 118), wo der Dissens (dissensio, Luc. 117) der Philosophen von Thales bis zu Platon und den Pythagoreern kritisiert wird. Diels hat hier ganz auffallend argumentiert.\r\n\r\nZum einen hat er, teilweise zu Recht, auf \u00dcbereinstimmungen zwischen Luc. 118 und den entsprechenden Theophrast-Fragmenten bzw. Paraphrasen in Simplikios\u2019 Kommentar zur aristotelischen Physik hingewiesen, die Usener und er den Physica opinionum zugewiesen haben. Als n\u00e4chstes aber hat er Luc. 119\u2013121 \u00fcber die stoische Theorie der Vorsehung (SVF I 92 u. 1161) und \u00fcber Aristoteles (De philos. fr. 20 Ross) und Stratons (fr. 32 Wehrli) entgegengesetzte Auffassungen ausgeklammert, weil dieses St\u00fcck nicht auf Theophrast zur\u00fcckgef\u00fchrt werden k\u00f6nne.\r\n\r\nAus den nachfolgenden Paragraphen, die \u00fcber verschiedene Ansichten von den Himmelsk\u00f6rpern und der Erde referieren, hat er schlie\u00dflich 123 \u201eHiketas von Syrakus, wie Theophrast sagt\u201c (Hicetas Syracosius, ut ait Theophrastus \u2026) usw. wieder als Beweis daf\u00fcr angezogen, dass die doxographische \u00dcbersicht zur Astronomie aus den Physica opinionum stamme.\r\n\r\nIn der Nachfolge Krisches hatte schlie\u00dflich schon Diels zu Recht bemerkt, dass Ciceros unmittelbare Quelle ein Akademiker, wohl ein Karneadessch\u00fcler, sein m\u00fcsse. Das Textst\u00fcck \u00fcber Hiketas (auch abgedruckt in Vorsokr. 51.1) hat er als Physica opinionum fr. 18 aufgenommen (DG 492\u20133). Es ist dies der einzige Cicerotext in der betreffenden Dielsschen Sammlung. [introduction p. 133]","btype":2,"date":"1989","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MGhjgtg4bJWxFhu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":378,"full_name":"Steinmetz, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":930,"section_of":334,"pages":"133-158","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":334,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1989b","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1989","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1989","abstract":"Cicero is best known for his political speeches. His Catilinarian orations are regularly studied in third or fourth year Latin; his self-proclaimed role as savior of the Republic is much discussed in courses on Roman history. But, however fascinating such material may be, there is another side to Cicero which is equally important and only now receiving the attention it deserves. This is Cicero's interest in Hellenistic thought. As a young man he studied philosophy in Greece; throughout his life he maintained a keen interest in intellectual history; and during periods of political inactivity - especially in his last years as the Republic collapsed - he wrote treatises that today are invaluable sources for our knowledge of Hellenistic philosophy, including the School of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nThe essays collected in this volume deal with these treatises and in particular with Cicero's knowledge of Peripatetic philosophy. They ask such questions as: Did Cicero-know Aristotle first hand, or was the corpus Aristotelicum unavailable to him and his contemporaries? Did Cicero have access to the writings of Theophrastus, and in general did he know the post-Aristotelians whose works are all but lost to us? When Cicero reports the views of early philosophers, is he a reliable witness, and is he conveying important information? These and other fundamental questions are asked with special reference to traditional areas of Greek thought: logic and rhetoric, politics and ethics, physics, psychology, and theology. The answers are various, but the overall impression is clear: Cicero himself was a highly intelligent, well educated Roman, whose treatises contain significant material. Scholars working on Peripatetic thought and on the Hellenistic period as a whole cannot afford to ignore them.\r\n\r\nThis fourth volume in the Rutgers University Studies in Classic Humanities series deals with Cicero, orator and writer of the late Roman Republic. Interest in Cicero arose out of Project Theophrastus, an international undertaking based at Rutgers dedicated to collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus. This collection will be of value to philologists, classicists, philosophers, as well as those interested in the history of science. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/FFKNInd4WCcNVDu","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":334,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Routledge","series":"Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"4","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. op. bei Cicero?"]}
| Title | Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | undefined |
| Date | 1988 |
| Publication Place | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain |
| Volume | 112 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Broek, Roelof van den , Baarda, Tjitze , Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"337","_score":null,"_source":{"id":337,"authors_free":[{"id":434,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":377,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","free_first_name":"Roelof van den","free_last_name":"Broek","norm_person":{"id":377,"first_name":"Roelof van den","last_name":"Broek","full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1032022191","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":435,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":376,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","free_first_name":"Tjitze","free_last_name":"Baarda","norm_person":{"id":376,"first_name":"Tjitze","last_name":"Baarda","full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119525607","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":436,"entry_id":337,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World","main_title":{"title":"Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1988","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ffb4bZzRDVS1ClO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":377,"full_name":"Broek, Roelof van den","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":376,"full_name":"Baarda, Tjitze","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":337,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"\u00c9tudes Pr\u00e9liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l\u2019Empire Romain","volume":"112","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World"]}
| Title | Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Publication Place | Assen – Maastricht |
| Publisher | Van Gorcum |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld’s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander’s cosmos, the status of Parmenides’ human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus’ atoms. [offical abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"161","_score":null,"_source":{"id":161,"authors_free":[{"id":208,"entry_id":161,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy","main_title":{"title":"Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"},"abstract":"The collection of nineteen articles in Jaap Mansfeld\u2019s Studies in Early Greek Philosophy span the period from Anaximander to Socrates. Solutions to problems of interpretation are offered through a scrutiny of the sources, and also of the traditions of presentation and reception found in antiquity. Excursions in the history of scholarship help to diagnose discussions of which the primum movens may have been forgotten. General questions are treated, for instance the phenomenon of detheologization in doxographical texts, while problems relating to individual philosophers are also discussed. For example, the history of Anaximander\u2019s cosmos, the status of Parmenides\u2019 human world, and the reliability of what we know about the soul of Anaximenes, and of what Philoponus tells us about the behaviour of Democritus\u2019 atoms. [offical abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iTj9s6Qm1NZVce9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":161,"pubplace":"Assen \u2013 Maastricht","publisher":"Van Gorcum","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Studies in the Historiography of Greek Philosophy"]}