Doxographica Anaxagorea, 1975
By: Schofield, Malcom
Title Doxographica Anaxagorea
Type Article
Language English
Date 1975
Journal Hermes
Volume 103
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's "all things" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition. How much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's "methodical point of departure" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"854","_score":null,"_source":{"id":854,"authors_free":[{"id":1258,"entry_id":854,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea","main_title":{"title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea"},"abstract":"The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's \"all things\" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.\r\n\r\nHow much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's \"methodical point of departure\" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dX7s9j2RuDMGCdU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":854,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"103","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":[1975]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Doxographica Anaxagorea, 1975
By: Schofield, Malcom
Title Doxographica Anaxagorea
Type Article
Language English
Date 1975
Journal Hermes
Volume 103
Issue 1
Pages 1-24
Categories no categories
Author(s) Schofield, Malcom
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's "all things" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.

How much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's "methodical point of departure" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]

{"_index":"sire","_id":"854","_score":null,"_source":{"id":854,"authors_free":[{"id":1258,"entry_id":854,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Schofield, Malcom","free_first_name":"Malcom","free_last_name":"Schofield","norm_person":{"id":285,"first_name":"Malcolm","last_name":"Schofield","full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132323737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea","main_title":{"title":"Doxographica Anaxagorea"},"abstract":"The information provided by these three texts that Anaxagoras made special application of his general theory of mixture to problems of growth and nutrition derives in each case from Theophrastus, whose word we have no reason to doubt, and who is in any case supported by Aristotle in De Generatione Animalium. The view, again presented in all three texts, that it was from reflection upon such problems, chiefly or in part, that Anaxagoras was led to formulate his general theory again derives from Theophrastus (and solely from him in Aetius's case) or from Aristotle glossed by Theophrastus (in the case of Simplicius and the scholium). For it is Aristotle who says that it was from seeing everything coming out of everything that Anaxagoras arrived at the theory of mixture, it is Aristotle who invariably illustrates Anaxagoras's \"all things\" by flesh and bone, and it is upon texts of Aristotle containing this explanation and these illustrations that both Simplicius's commentary and the scholium are based. Aristotle does not concentrate on biological processes exclusively, to be sure, but no doubt Theophrastus was acting in the spirit of Aristotle when he illustrates his own Aristotelian exposition of Anaxagoras's train of thought by reference to the problem of nutrition.\r\n\r\nHow much, then, are the texts to which Jaeger appealed for his account of Anaxagoras's \"methodical point of departure\" worth? Just and only as much as are Aristotle and Theophrastus. But whether they are right is, as I have said, another story. [conclusion p. 24]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dX7s9j2RuDMGCdU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":285,"full_name":"Schofield, Malcolm","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":854,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"103","issue":"1","pages":"1-24"}},"sort":["Doxographica Anaxagorea"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1