| 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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\""]}