{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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":"t is not my aim in this paper to decide between the opinions of JAEGER \r\nand LANZA. I want rather to try to settle a prior question posed by JAEGER'S \r\nargument in the extract from his Gifford Lectures printed above. He appeals \r\nprincipally to two texts in advancing his view of Anaxagoras's 'methodical \r\npoint of departure': a scholium on Gregory of Nazianzus (DK 59 B io) and a \r\nbit of Simplicius's commentary on the Physics. Do these texts provide reliable evidence for an interest in nutrition and growth on Anaxagoras's part and for \r\nthe decisive role of his thinking on these matters in his general theory of \r\nmatter which JAEGER discerns ? [pp. 1 f.]","btype":3,"date":"1975","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/dLHRzAyIMmQudTY","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"]}