{"_index":"sire","_id":"1102","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1102,"authors_free":[{"id":1665,"entry_id":1102,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks","main_title":{"title":"Anaximander and Dr Dicks"},"abstract":"I am sorry to have annoyed Dr. Dicks by criticizing two articles of his in one of my footnotes (D. R. Dicks, On Anaximander's Figures, JHS LXXXIX [1969] 120: the offending footnote is in JHS LXXXVIII [1968] 120 n. 44, referring to Dicks, CQ n.s. IX [1959] 294-309, especially 299 and 301, and JHS LXXXVI [1966] 26-40, especially 30 and 36). I limit myself to the four specific points raised, in the hope that Dr. Dicks may one day be kind enough to substantiate his more general criticisms.\r\nPseudo-Galen\r\n\r\nFive separate doxographical sources attribute to Anaxagoras the statement that the sun is larger, or many times larger, than the Peloponnese. Galen, or pseudo-Galen, notes that Anaxagoras' sun is larger than the earth. I suggested that this second formula, although it may not misrepresent the substance of Anaxagoras' theory, was \"probably in Galen simply a random error, arising from the fact that the preceding sentence, on Anaximander, twice makes a comparison of sun and earth\" (JHS LXXXVIII [1968] 124 n. 62). It is hard to know what motivates Dr. Dicks to omit my reasoning and to stigmatize my conclusion as \"curious\" and \"eccentric.\"\r\nTannery\r\n\r\nTannery offered three pairs of figures for the distances of the inner and outer diameters of the wheels of stars, moon, and sun in Anaximander's universe: 9 and 10, 18 and 19, 27 and 28 (Science Hell\u00e8ne 94-5). Of these, the figures 19, 27, and 28 are given in doxographical sources. The remaining figures, 9, 10, and 18, are conjectural.\r\n\r\nIf one wishes to criticize Tannery's reconstruction, it makes little sense to isolate one half only of this series. It makes still less sense to isolate the half for which there is less evidence: 9, 18, and 27. But only by doing so is Dr. Dicks able to justify the sentence which I quoted from him: \"only 27 in the series has any textual authority.\"\r\n\r\nI am sorry if the manner in which I quoted this sentence made it appear that Dr. Dicks had never even heard of the other two figures which appear in the sources, 19 and 28. But Dr. Dicks is wrong to criticize Tannery as though he had generated a single series of numbers from the one figure, 27, which would have been a very dubious procedure. Tannery produced a double series of numbers from the three figures, 19, 27, and 28. This is a very different argument, which has won the support of several scholars and which has recently fallen into disfavour only as the result of a number of misunderstandings, which I have tried to dispel in an article in The Classical Quarterly (n.s. XVII [1967] 423-32).\r\nSimplicius\r\n\r\nIn these, and in other doxographical passages, statements are attributed to Anaximander about the sizes and distances of earth, stars, moon, and sun. In Simplicius, mention of megeth\u00ea kai apost\u00eamata is restricted, albeit loosely, to ta plan\u00f4mena: that the restriction in the context is a loose one anyone may verify who cares to turn up the original passage (De Caelo 470.29 ff = DK 12A19 in part).\r\n\r\nBecause I suggest that Simplicius here may misrepresent Eudemus, whom Simplicius refers to at this point, Dr. Dicks attributes to me the principle that \"Simplicius' words may be altered, excised, or transposed at will.\" In fact, my interpretation of this passage in Simplicius is no different from that implied by Zeller in his great work (Philosophie der Griechen I 1, 298-301) and in part by Tannery (Science Hell\u00e8ne 91).\r\nTheophrastus\r\n\r\nFinally, Dr. Dicks objects to my quotation of two claims:\r\n\r\n \"The chances that the original works of the earlier Pre-Socratics were still readily available to his (sc. Aristotle's) pupils, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus... are extremely small.\"\r\n \"There is, therefore, no justification whatsoever for supposing that very late commentators, such as Proclus (5th century A.D.) and Simplicius (6th century A.D.), can possibly possess more authentic information about the Pre-Socratics than the earlier epitomators and excerptors...\"\r\n\r\nIt was these two sentences which occasioned my footnote: for here an important principle is at stake. Dr. Dicks now explains that his remarks were intended to be limited to Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. The reader could not have guessed that this was so: for the very paragraphs from which Dr. Dicks' judgment is quoted include references to Xenophanes and (indirectly) Heraclitus, while the paragraph immediately following the second sentence which I quoted (CQ n.s. IX [1959] 301) lists \"Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Empedocles\" as \"these early figures.\"\r\n\r\nNonetheless, even if we restrict ourselves to Dr. Dicks' chosen trio, my point remains: there is evidence that Anaximander's work was known both to Apollodorus and to Theophrastus. (N.B. \"Known to\": for, as I remarked in my note, \"I would not claim to distinguish between 'available' and 'readily available' in the case of Theophrastus and Eudemus\".)\r\n\r\nDr. Dicks ignores this simple refutation of both his earlier and his emended thesis. [the entire note]","btype":3,"date":"1970","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YpWmO3Tof91Vb3y","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1102,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"90","issue":"","pages":"198-199"}},"sort":["Anaximander and Dr Dicks"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"865","_score":null,"_source":{"id":865,"authors_free":[{"id":1269,"entry_id":865,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":144,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"O'Brien, Denis","free_first_name":"Denis","free_last_name":"O'Brien","norm_person":{"id":144,"first_name":"Denis","last_name":"O'Brien","full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/134134079","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle","main_title":{"title":"Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle"},"abstract":"Hitherto reconstructions of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle have usually been offered as part of a larger work, a complete history of Presocratic thought, or \r\na complete study of Empedocles. Consequently there has perhaps been a lack of thoroughness in collecting and sifting evidence that relates exclusively to the main features of the cosmic cycle. There is in fact probably more evidence \r\nfor Empedocles\u2019 main views than for those of any other Presocratic except Parmenides in his Way of Truth. From a close examination of the fragments \r\nand of the secondary sources, principally Aristotle, Plutarch, and Simplicius, there can be formed a reasonably complete picture of the main temporal and spatial features of Empedocles\u2019 cosmic cycle. [Introduction, p. 29]","btype":3,"date":"1967","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fiLkRFQK4eMiUJl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":144,"full_name":"O'Brien, Denis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":865,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"17","issue":"1","pages":"29-40"}},"sort":["Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle"]}