Title | Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg" |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2001 |
Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
Volume | 54 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 78-84 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with "Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg." The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"779","_score":null,"_source":{"id":779,"authors_free":[{"id":1143,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1144,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\"","main_title":{"title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\""},"abstract":"We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with \"Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg.\" The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":779,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"54","issue":"1","pages":"78-84"}},"sort":[2001]}
Title | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 1999 |
Publication Place | Genève |
Publisher | Fondation Hardt |
Series | Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique |
Volume | 45 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Calder, William M. , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UksPHusSKrnsi7e |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"336","_score":null,"_source":{"id":336,"authors_free":[{"id":432,"entry_id":336,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"William M.","free_last_name":"Calder","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":433,"entry_id":336,"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":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","main_title":{"title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1999","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Pages | 169-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Burkert, Walter |
Editor(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
Title | Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 1994 |
Publication Place | Leiden |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Philosophia Antiqua |
Volume | 61 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Prolegomena deals with the introductory and hermeuneutic sections of a wide range of commentaries and studies on philosophical, scientific, biblical and other ancient authors. Special attention is given to unclearness as a stimulus for interpretation. New light is shed on the Life of an author (e.g. Plotinus') as a preliminary to the study of his works, and on the part played by the idea that life and doctrine should agree with each other. The results obtained by the study of the practices as well as the avowed principles of ancient scholars and commentators among other things further the understanding of the interrelated philosophical, literary, medical and patristic exegetical traditions, of the book of Diogenes Laertius, of Galen's autobibliographies and of Thrasyllus' Before the Reading of the Dialogues of Plato. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/scCA9LVAgPDr4xM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1440","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1440,"authors_free":[{"id":2299,"entry_id":1440,"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":"Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text"},"abstract":"Prolegomena deals with the introductory and hermeuneutic sections of a wide range of commentaries and studies on philosophical, scientific, biblical and other ancient authors.\r\nSpecial attention is given to unclearness as a stimulus for interpretation. New light is shed on the Life of an author (e.g. Plotinus') as a preliminary to the study of his works, and on the part played by the idea that life and doctrine should agree with each other.\r\nThe results obtained by the study of the practices as well as the avowed principles of ancient scholars and commentators among other things further the understanding of the interrelated philosophical, literary, medical and patristic exegetical traditions, of the book of Diogenes Laertius, of Galen's autobibliographies and of Thrasyllus' Before the Reading of the Dialogues of Plato. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1994","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/scCA9LVAgPDr4xM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1440,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"61","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1994]}
Title | Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Journal | Mnemosyne |
Volume | 46 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 572–575 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A learned book that reads like a novel. It contains fascinating new information on the late Neoplatonists. "Paysages reliques" refers to exceptionally rare landscapes or, rather, sites in an otherwise overwhelmingly Christianized world where pagan divinities are still present. In the first chapter, T. reconstructs the pilgrimage of Isidorus and Damascius to Bostra, and from Bostra to a site in Syria east of Gadara, where they believed the waters of Styx could be seen. These waters were still venerated by the local population in the old pagan way. Commenting on the fragments of Damascius' Life of Isidorus pertaining to this trip, T., among other things, shows in what ways the description of the numinous site was idealized and how it echoes descriptions in Homer, Plato, and others of similar entrances to the netherworld. In the second chapter, T. offers a marvelous history of navigation on the Tigris, from Assyrian times until just before World War II, by means of the so-called kālek, a wooden construction kept afloat by inflated animal skins (e.g., sheep skins). He does so because an absolutely unique reference to this means of transport is found in Simplicius’ In De Caelo 525.10–3 Heiberg, who, explaining a point made by Aristotle, tells us that inflated skins are capable of supporting heavy loads (... ?? ?pe?????? ?a? ??? ?at? t?? ????a? p?ta???). This is the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates. In chapter 3, T. attempts to ferret out the implications of this statement. Several of the numerous sources of this river, mentioned by the elder Pliny and Aelianus, were believed to be sacred to the Syrian goddess and venerated by the local population; the Syrian goddess, in turn, was supposed to be the equivalent of Hera. T. also reproduces descriptions of these sites by later visitors who wrote in Arabic. In antiquity, travel on the Habur was possible by means of small kāleks. T. hypothesizes (without direct evidence) that Simplicius visited these sources for religious and philosophical reasons and that, in fact, his trip was a pilgrimage comparable to that of Isidorus and Damascius one century earlier. After his visit to the sources, Simplicius could have traveled downstream by kālek himself. T. argues (pp. 130 ff.) that this journey has nothing to do with the famous story of the sojourn of the seven philosophers in Persia after the closing of the Academy by Julian. He assumes that not the whole group of seven philosophers mentioned by Agathias (Hist. II c. 30–31 Keydell), but only Damascius, "métaphysicien globe-trotter au service du paganisme," went to Persia in 531, was received by the king of kings, and secured the inclusion of the famous clause in the peace treaty permitting pagan philosophers to live according to their own ways. T.’s argument seems to be that Agathias (our only source, however) was biased and that Simplicius would have mentioned the kāleks of the Tigris if he had made the journey downriver to the Persian capital himself. The sources of the Habur are three days by foot to the east of Harran (better known to classicists as Carrhae), an important city near the Persian frontier and perhaps the last stronghold of paganism in the Greco-Roman world. In a paper published in 1986, T. convincingly argued that the so-called Sabians of Harran, who were visited by al-Mas‘udi around 940 and whose main doctrine is described in a fragment of al-Kindi, were (Neo-)Platonists. He assumed that Harran was the safe haven granted to the philosophers after the treaty of 532 and that it was there, not in Athens, that Simplicius wrote his great commentaries on Aristotle. In a second paper published the following year, T. proved that of the four calendars mentioned in Simpl. In Phys. 875.19 ff. Diels, three were actually used simultaneously in Harran and only there, whereas the first listed (the Athenian) must have been observed in the Platonic school. In chapter 4 of the present book ("D'un commentaire à l'autre"), T. is able to add to the circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Simplicius lived and wrote in Harran after 532. First, at In Phys. 684.35 ff., he points out that many people crossed rivers using inflated animal skins, as indeed they did in the regions of the Habur and the Tigris (typically one skin per person). Secondly, at In Cat. 358.12 ff. Busse, his examples of compound nouns with a single meaning are Hierapolis and Agathodaimon; these are unparalleled elsewhere. T. plausibly argues (pp. 153 ff.) that the city in question is Hierapolis in Syria, two days by foot west of Harran. Agathodaimon is Hermes' divine teacher in the Corpus Hermeticum. T. points out (pp. 158 ff.) that the pagans of Harran, according to a fragment of al-Kindi, possessed Hermetic writings. Al-Sarahsi, who transmits this information, adds that they venerated Agathodaimon. Thirdly, a passage at In Phys. 641.33 ff. allows T. to argue that Simplicius refers here to a Hermetic identification of the Syrian goddess Atargatis with Isis. T.'s main argument, presented with admirable clarity, is on the whole convincing. That we are now much better informed about the ways in which Greek philosophy reached the Arabs is a major step forward. Yet one should keep in mind that nothing so far is known of a Neoplatonist school or tradition at Harran before Simplicius, and that there is a considerable gap between him and the Platonists visited by al-Mas‘udi several centuries later. Though continuity is plausible, evidence is lacking. Perhaps T. could have said more about Hermetism at Harran, which was presumably incorporated into Neoplatonism. M. Grignaschi has argued that what he calls a late Greek "epistolary novel" (5th century), containing an exchange of letters between Alexander and Aristotle, was amplified and revised by what he terms (on what appears to be thin evidence) a follower of Hermes who wrote in Arabic in the 7th–8th century at Harran. An investigation by a qualified Orientalist (why not T. himself?) into the relation between the traditions studied by Grignaschi and the facts unearthed by T. may produce surprising results—or so one surmises. [the entire review] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fu8N5kakur5o7NI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1010","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1010,"authors_free":[{"id":1524,"entry_id":1010,"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":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"A learned book that reads like a novel. It contains fascinating new information on the late Neoplatonists. \"Paysages reliques\" refers to exceptionally rare landscapes or, rather, sites in an otherwise overwhelmingly Christianized world where pagan divinities are still present. In the first chapter, T. reconstructs the pilgrimage of Isidorus and Damascius to Bostra, and from Bostra to a site in Syria east of Gadara, where they believed the waters of Styx could be seen. These waters were still venerated by the local population in the old pagan way. Commenting on the fragments of Damascius' Life of Isidorus pertaining to this trip, T., among other things, shows in what ways the description of the numinous site was idealized and how it echoes descriptions in Homer, Plato, and others of similar entrances to the netherworld.\r\n\r\nIn the second chapter, T. offers a marvelous history of navigation on the Tigris, from Assyrian times until just before World War II, by means of the so-called k\u0101lek, a wooden construction kept afloat by inflated animal skins (e.g., sheep skins). He does so because an absolutely unique reference to this means of transport is found in Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 525.10\u20133 Heiberg, who, explaining a point made by Aristotle, tells us that inflated skins are capable of supporting heavy loads (... ?? ?pe?????? ?a? ??? ?at? t?? ????a? p?ta???). This is the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates. In chapter 3, T. attempts to ferret out the implications of this statement. Several of the numerous sources of this river, mentioned by the elder Pliny and Aelianus, were believed to be sacred to the Syrian goddess and venerated by the local population; the Syrian goddess, in turn, was supposed to be the equivalent of Hera. T. also reproduces descriptions of these sites by later visitors who wrote in Arabic. In antiquity, travel on the Habur was possible by means of small k\u0101leks. T. hypothesizes (without direct evidence) that Simplicius visited these sources for religious and philosophical reasons and that, in fact, his trip was a pilgrimage comparable to that of Isidorus and Damascius one century earlier. After his visit to the sources, Simplicius could have traveled downstream by k\u0101lek himself.\r\n\r\nT. argues (pp. 130 ff.) that this journey has nothing to do with the famous story of the sojourn of the seven philosophers in Persia after the closing of the Academy by Julian. He assumes that not the whole group of seven philosophers mentioned by Agathias (Hist. II c. 30\u201331 Keydell), but only Damascius, \"m\u00e9taphysicien globe-trotter au service du paganisme,\" went to Persia in 531, was received by the king of kings, and secured the inclusion of the famous clause in the peace treaty permitting pagan philosophers to live according to their own ways. T.\u2019s argument seems to be that Agathias (our only source, however) was biased and that Simplicius would have mentioned the k\u0101leks of the Tigris if he had made the journey downriver to the Persian capital himself.\r\n\r\nThe sources of the Habur are three days by foot to the east of Harran (better known to classicists as Carrhae), an important city near the Persian frontier and perhaps the last stronghold of paganism in the Greco-Roman world. In a paper published in 1986, T. convincingly argued that the so-called Sabians of Harran, who were visited by al-Mas\u2018udi around 940 and whose main doctrine is described in a fragment of al-Kindi, were (Neo-)Platonists. He assumed that Harran was the safe haven granted to the philosophers after the treaty of 532 and that it was there, not in Athens, that Simplicius wrote his great commentaries on Aristotle. In a second paper published the following year, T. proved that of the four calendars mentioned in Simpl. In Phys. 875.19 ff. Diels, three were actually used simultaneously in Harran and only there, whereas the first listed (the Athenian) must have been observed in the Platonic school.\r\n\r\nIn chapter 4 of the present book (\"D'un commentaire \u00e0 l'autre\"), T. is able to add to the circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Simplicius lived and wrote in Harran after 532. First, at In Phys. 684.35 ff., he points out that many people crossed rivers using inflated animal skins, as indeed they did in the regions of the Habur and the Tigris (typically one skin per person). Secondly, at In Cat. 358.12 ff. Busse, his examples of compound nouns with a single meaning are Hierapolis and Agathodaimon; these are unparalleled elsewhere. T. plausibly argues (pp. 153 ff.) that the city in question is Hierapolis in Syria, two days by foot west of Harran. Agathodaimon is Hermes' divine teacher in the Corpus Hermeticum. T. points out (pp. 158 ff.) that the pagans of Harran, according to a fragment of al-Kindi, possessed Hermetic writings. Al-Sarahsi, who transmits this information, adds that they venerated Agathodaimon. Thirdly, a passage at In Phys. 641.33 ff. allows T. to argue that Simplicius refers here to a Hermetic identification of the Syrian goddess Atargatis with Isis.\r\n\r\nT.'s main argument, presented with admirable clarity, is on the whole convincing. That we are now much better informed about the ways in which Greek philosophy reached the Arabs is a major step forward. Yet one should keep in mind that nothing so far is known of a Neoplatonist school or tradition at Harran before Simplicius, and that there is a considerable gap between him and the Platonists visited by al-Mas\u2018udi several centuries later. Though continuity is plausible, evidence is lacking. Perhaps T. could have said more about Hermetism at Harran, which was presumably incorporated into Neoplatonism. M. Grignaschi has argued that what he calls a late Greek \"epistolary novel\" (5th century), containing an exchange of letters between Alexander and Aristotle, was amplified and revised by what he terms (on what appears to be thin evidence) a follower of Hermes who wrote in Arabic in the 7th\u20138th century at Harran. An investigation by a qualified Orientalist (why not T. himself?) into the relation between the traditions studied by Grignaschi and the facts unearthed by T. may produce surprising results\u2014or so one surmises. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fu8N5kakur5o7NI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1010,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"572\u2013575"}},"sort":[1993]}
Title | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 63-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"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":1526,"entry_id":1011,"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":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","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":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
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 | Diels' Vorsokratiker, Rückschau und Ausblick |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 1999 |
Published in | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Pages | 169-197 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Burkert, Walter |
Editor(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap , Calder, William M. |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1462","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1462,"authors_free":[{"id":2532,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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}},{"id":2533,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"Calder","free_last_name":"William M.","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2534,"entry_id":1462,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":538,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Burkert, Walter","free_first_name":"Walter","free_last_name":"Burkert","norm_person":{"id":538,"first_name":"Walter","last_name":"Burkert","full_name":"Burkert, Walter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119476967","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick","main_title":{"title":"Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qmaq8lxyMueMGPD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":538,"full_name":"Burkert, Walter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1462,"section_of":336,"pages":"169-197","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":336,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Calder_Mansfeld1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Diels' Vorsokratiker, R\u00fcckschau und Ausblick"]}
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 | Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquité : huit exposés suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Genève 17 - 21 août 1998 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | undefined |
Date | 1999 |
Publication Place | Genève |
Publisher | Fondation Hardt |
Series | Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique |
Volume | 45 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Calder, William M. , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Translator(s) |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UksPHusSKrnsi7e |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"336","_score":null,"_source":{"id":336,"authors_free":[{"id":432,"entry_id":336,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":537,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Calder, William M.","free_first_name":"William M.","free_last_name":"Calder","norm_person":{"id":537,"first_name":"William M.","last_name":"Calder","full_name":"Calder, William M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122129296","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":433,"entry_id":336,"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":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998","main_title":{"title":"Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998"},"abstract":"","btype":4,"date":"1999","language":"","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UksPHusSKrnsi7e","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":537,"full_name":"Calder, William M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":336,"pubplace":"Gen\u00e8ve","publisher":"Fondation Hardt","series":"Entretiens sur l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 classique","volume":"45","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Hermann Diels (1848 - 1922) et la science de l'antiquit\u00e9 : huit expos\u00e9s suivis de discussions, Vandoeuvres, Gen\u00e8ve 17 - 21 ao\u00fbt 1998"]}
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 | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 1992 |
Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
Pages | 63-111 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
Translator(s) |
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"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":1526,"entry_id":1011,"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":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","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":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"]}
Title | Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 1994 |
Publication Place | Leiden |
Publisher | Brill |
Series | Philosophia Antiqua |
Volume | 61 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Prolegomena deals with the introductory and hermeuneutic sections of a wide range of commentaries and studies on philosophical, scientific, biblical and other ancient authors. Special attention is given to unclearness as a stimulus for interpretation. New light is shed on the Life of an author (e.g. Plotinus') as a preliminary to the study of his works, and on the part played by the idea that life and doctrine should agree with each other. The results obtained by the study of the practices as well as the avowed principles of ancient scholars and commentators among other things further the understanding of the interrelated philosophical, literary, medical and patristic exegetical traditions, of the book of Diogenes Laertius, of Galen's autobibliographies and of Thrasyllus' Before the Reading of the Dialogues of Plato. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/scCA9LVAgPDr4xM |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1440","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1440,"authors_free":[{"id":2299,"entry_id":1440,"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":"Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text","main_title":{"title":"Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text"},"abstract":"Prolegomena deals with the introductory and hermeuneutic sections of a wide range of commentaries and studies on philosophical, scientific, biblical and other ancient authors.\r\nSpecial attention is given to unclearness as a stimulus for interpretation. New light is shed on the Life of an author (e.g. Plotinus') as a preliminary to the study of his works, and on the part played by the idea that life and doctrine should agree with each other.\r\nThe results obtained by the study of the practices as well as the avowed principles of ancient scholars and commentators among other things further the understanding of the interrelated philosophical, literary, medical and patristic exegetical traditions, of the book of Diogenes Laertius, of Galen's autobibliographies and of Thrasyllus' Before the Reading of the Dialogues of Plato. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"1994","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/scCA9LVAgPDr4xM","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":1440,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"61","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text"]}
Title | Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore à Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 1993 |
Journal | Mnemosyne |
Volume | 46 |
Issue | 4 |
Pages | 572–575 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
A learned book that reads like a novel. It contains fascinating new information on the late Neoplatonists. "Paysages reliques" refers to exceptionally rare landscapes or, rather, sites in an otherwise overwhelmingly Christianized world where pagan divinities are still present. In the first chapter, T. reconstructs the pilgrimage of Isidorus and Damascius to Bostra, and from Bostra to a site in Syria east of Gadara, where they believed the waters of Styx could be seen. These waters were still venerated by the local population in the old pagan way. Commenting on the fragments of Damascius' Life of Isidorus pertaining to this trip, T., among other things, shows in what ways the description of the numinous site was idealized and how it echoes descriptions in Homer, Plato, and others of similar entrances to the netherworld. In the second chapter, T. offers a marvelous history of navigation on the Tigris, from Assyrian times until just before World War II, by means of the so-called kālek, a wooden construction kept afloat by inflated animal skins (e.g., sheep skins). He does so because an absolutely unique reference to this means of transport is found in Simplicius’ In De Caelo 525.10–3 Heiberg, who, explaining a point made by Aristotle, tells us that inflated skins are capable of supporting heavy loads (... ?? ?pe?????? ?a? ??? ?at? t?? ????a? p?ta???). This is the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates. In chapter 3, T. attempts to ferret out the implications of this statement. Several of the numerous sources of this river, mentioned by the elder Pliny and Aelianus, were believed to be sacred to the Syrian goddess and venerated by the local population; the Syrian goddess, in turn, was supposed to be the equivalent of Hera. T. also reproduces descriptions of these sites by later visitors who wrote in Arabic. In antiquity, travel on the Habur was possible by means of small kāleks. T. hypothesizes (without direct evidence) that Simplicius visited these sources for religious and philosophical reasons and that, in fact, his trip was a pilgrimage comparable to that of Isidorus and Damascius one century earlier. After his visit to the sources, Simplicius could have traveled downstream by kālek himself. T. argues (pp. 130 ff.) that this journey has nothing to do with the famous story of the sojourn of the seven philosophers in Persia after the closing of the Academy by Julian. He assumes that not the whole group of seven philosophers mentioned by Agathias (Hist. II c. 30–31 Keydell), but only Damascius, "métaphysicien globe-trotter au service du paganisme," went to Persia in 531, was received by the king of kings, and secured the inclusion of the famous clause in the peace treaty permitting pagan philosophers to live according to their own ways. T.’s argument seems to be that Agathias (our only source, however) was biased and that Simplicius would have mentioned the kāleks of the Tigris if he had made the journey downriver to the Persian capital himself. The sources of the Habur are three days by foot to the east of Harran (better known to classicists as Carrhae), an important city near the Persian frontier and perhaps the last stronghold of paganism in the Greco-Roman world. In a paper published in 1986, T. convincingly argued that the so-called Sabians of Harran, who were visited by al-Mas‘udi around 940 and whose main doctrine is described in a fragment of al-Kindi, were (Neo-)Platonists. He assumed that Harran was the safe haven granted to the philosophers after the treaty of 532 and that it was there, not in Athens, that Simplicius wrote his great commentaries on Aristotle. In a second paper published the following year, T. proved that of the four calendars mentioned in Simpl. In Phys. 875.19 ff. Diels, three were actually used simultaneously in Harran and only there, whereas the first listed (the Athenian) must have been observed in the Platonic school. In chapter 4 of the present book ("D'un commentaire à l'autre"), T. is able to add to the circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Simplicius lived and wrote in Harran after 532. First, at In Phys. 684.35 ff., he points out that many people crossed rivers using inflated animal skins, as indeed they did in the regions of the Habur and the Tigris (typically one skin per person). Secondly, at In Cat. 358.12 ff. Busse, his examples of compound nouns with a single meaning are Hierapolis and Agathodaimon; these are unparalleled elsewhere. T. plausibly argues (pp. 153 ff.) that the city in question is Hierapolis in Syria, two days by foot west of Harran. Agathodaimon is Hermes' divine teacher in the Corpus Hermeticum. T. points out (pp. 158 ff.) that the pagans of Harran, according to a fragment of al-Kindi, possessed Hermetic writings. Al-Sarahsi, who transmits this information, adds that they venerated Agathodaimon. Thirdly, a passage at In Phys. 641.33 ff. allows T. to argue that Simplicius refers here to a Hermetic identification of the Syrian goddess Atargatis with Isis. T.'s main argument, presented with admirable clarity, is on the whole convincing. That we are now much better informed about the ways in which Greek philosophy reached the Arabs is a major step forward. Yet one should keep in mind that nothing so far is known of a Neoplatonist school or tradition at Harran before Simplicius, and that there is a considerable gap between him and the Platonists visited by al-Mas‘udi several centuries later. Though continuity is plausible, evidence is lacking. Perhaps T. could have said more about Hermetism at Harran, which was presumably incorporated into Neoplatonism. M. Grignaschi has argued that what he calls a late Greek "epistolary novel" (5th century), containing an exchange of letters between Alexander and Aristotle, was amplified and revised by what he terms (on what appears to be thin evidence) a follower of Hermes who wrote in Arabic in the 7th–8th century at Harran. An investigation by a qualified Orientalist (why not T. himself?) into the relation between the traditions studied by Grignaschi and the facts unearthed by T. may produce surprising results—or so one surmises. [the entire review] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fu8N5kakur5o7NI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1010","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1010,"authors_free":[{"id":1524,"entry_id":1010,"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":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"},"abstract":"A learned book that reads like a novel. It contains fascinating new information on the late Neoplatonists. \"Paysages reliques\" refers to exceptionally rare landscapes or, rather, sites in an otherwise overwhelmingly Christianized world where pagan divinities are still present. In the first chapter, T. reconstructs the pilgrimage of Isidorus and Damascius to Bostra, and from Bostra to a site in Syria east of Gadara, where they believed the waters of Styx could be seen. These waters were still venerated by the local population in the old pagan way. Commenting on the fragments of Damascius' Life of Isidorus pertaining to this trip, T., among other things, shows in what ways the description of the numinous site was idealized and how it echoes descriptions in Homer, Plato, and others of similar entrances to the netherworld.\r\n\r\nIn the second chapter, T. offers a marvelous history of navigation on the Tigris, from Assyrian times until just before World War II, by means of the so-called k\u0101lek, a wooden construction kept afloat by inflated animal skins (e.g., sheep skins). He does so because an absolutely unique reference to this means of transport is found in Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 525.10\u20133 Heiberg, who, explaining a point made by Aristotle, tells us that inflated skins are capable of supporting heavy loads (... ?? ?pe?????? ?a? ??? ?at? t?? ????a? p?ta???). This is the Habur, a tributary of the Euphrates. In chapter 3, T. attempts to ferret out the implications of this statement. Several of the numerous sources of this river, mentioned by the elder Pliny and Aelianus, were believed to be sacred to the Syrian goddess and venerated by the local population; the Syrian goddess, in turn, was supposed to be the equivalent of Hera. T. also reproduces descriptions of these sites by later visitors who wrote in Arabic. In antiquity, travel on the Habur was possible by means of small k\u0101leks. T. hypothesizes (without direct evidence) that Simplicius visited these sources for religious and philosophical reasons and that, in fact, his trip was a pilgrimage comparable to that of Isidorus and Damascius one century earlier. After his visit to the sources, Simplicius could have traveled downstream by k\u0101lek himself.\r\n\r\nT. argues (pp. 130 ff.) that this journey has nothing to do with the famous story of the sojourn of the seven philosophers in Persia after the closing of the Academy by Julian. He assumes that not the whole group of seven philosophers mentioned by Agathias (Hist. II c. 30\u201331 Keydell), but only Damascius, \"m\u00e9taphysicien globe-trotter au service du paganisme,\" went to Persia in 531, was received by the king of kings, and secured the inclusion of the famous clause in the peace treaty permitting pagan philosophers to live according to their own ways. T.\u2019s argument seems to be that Agathias (our only source, however) was biased and that Simplicius would have mentioned the k\u0101leks of the Tigris if he had made the journey downriver to the Persian capital himself.\r\n\r\nThe sources of the Habur are three days by foot to the east of Harran (better known to classicists as Carrhae), an important city near the Persian frontier and perhaps the last stronghold of paganism in the Greco-Roman world. In a paper published in 1986, T. convincingly argued that the so-called Sabians of Harran, who were visited by al-Mas\u2018udi around 940 and whose main doctrine is described in a fragment of al-Kindi, were (Neo-)Platonists. He assumed that Harran was the safe haven granted to the philosophers after the treaty of 532 and that it was there, not in Athens, that Simplicius wrote his great commentaries on Aristotle. In a second paper published the following year, T. proved that of the four calendars mentioned in Simpl. In Phys. 875.19 ff. Diels, three were actually used simultaneously in Harran and only there, whereas the first listed (the Athenian) must have been observed in the Platonic school.\r\n\r\nIn chapter 4 of the present book (\"D'un commentaire \u00e0 l'autre\"), T. is able to add to the circumstantial evidence supporting the hypothesis that Simplicius lived and wrote in Harran after 532. First, at In Phys. 684.35 ff., he points out that many people crossed rivers using inflated animal skins, as indeed they did in the regions of the Habur and the Tigris (typically one skin per person). Secondly, at In Cat. 358.12 ff. Busse, his examples of compound nouns with a single meaning are Hierapolis and Agathodaimon; these are unparalleled elsewhere. T. plausibly argues (pp. 153 ff.) that the city in question is Hierapolis in Syria, two days by foot west of Harran. Agathodaimon is Hermes' divine teacher in the Corpus Hermeticum. T. points out (pp. 158 ff.) that the pagans of Harran, according to a fragment of al-Kindi, possessed Hermetic writings. Al-Sarahsi, who transmits this information, adds that they venerated Agathodaimon. Thirdly, a passage at In Phys. 641.33 ff. allows T. to argue that Simplicius refers here to a Hermetic identification of the Syrian goddess Atargatis with Isis.\r\n\r\nT.'s main argument, presented with admirable clarity, is on the whole convincing. That we are now much better informed about the ways in which Greek philosophy reached the Arabs is a major step forward. Yet one should keep in mind that nothing so far is known of a Neoplatonist school or tradition at Harran before Simplicius, and that there is a considerable gap between him and the Platonists visited by al-Mas\u2018udi several centuries later. Though continuity is plausible, evidence is lacking. Perhaps T. could have said more about Hermetism at Harran, which was presumably incorporated into Neoplatonism. M. Grignaschi has argued that what he calls a late Greek \"epistolary novel\" (5th century), containing an exchange of letters between Alexander and Aristotle, was amplified and revised by what he terms (on what appears to be thin evidence) a follower of Hermes who wrote in Arabic in the 7th\u20138th century at Harran. An investigation by a qualified Orientalist (why not T. himself?) into the relation between the traditions studied by Grignaschi and the facts unearthed by T. may produce surprising results\u2014or so one surmises. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"1993","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fu8N5kakur5o7NI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1010,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne","volume":"46","issue":"4","pages":"572\u2013575"}},"sort":["Review of: Tardieu 1990: Routes et haltes syriennes d'Isidore \u00e0 Simplicius"]}
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"]}
Title | Three Thêtas in the "Empédocle de Strasbourg" |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2001 |
Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
Volume | 54 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 78-84 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. , Mansfeld, Jaap |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with "Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg." The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"779","_score":null,"_source":{"id":779,"authors_free":[{"id":1143,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1144,"entry_id":779,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\"","main_title":{"title":"Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\""},"abstract":"We conclude that we cannot, merely on the basis of the Strasbourg fragments, confidently assign to the physical poem the gruesome fragment (now plus its new context) Stein and Diels assigned to the Purifications. Until further evidence turns up, only a non liquet is feasible, and we should keep open the possibility that we are dealing with \"Zwei Empedocle de Strasbourg.\" The 6s in the papyrus fragments discussed above are simply wrong. The slightly bizarre interpretation based on them may be abandoned. [conclusion p. 81]","btype":3,"date":"2001","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/K3k0s0RXMbEYW6J","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":779,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"54","issue":"1","pages":"78-84"}},"sort":["Three Th\u00eatas in the \"Emp\u00e9docle de Strasbourg\""]}