| Title | Alexander on Physics 2.9 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 19-30 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included—and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander’s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says: "For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something." Perhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless. If my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno’s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless. In Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate “the for-the-sake-of-something,” but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using “conditional” or “hypothetical” necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, “absolute” to indicate that which is conditional on past events—presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis. Building a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle’s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle’s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being—perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now. For, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this “thesis A”); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this “thesis B”). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena. Normally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions—what some call “absolute” necessity—is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means? [introduction p. 19-20] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included\u2014and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander\u2019s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n \"For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something.\"\r\n\r\nPerhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIf my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno\u2019s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIn Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate \u201cthe for-the-sake-of-something,\u201d but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using \u201cconditional\u201d or \u201chypothetical\u201d necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, \u201cabsolute\u201d to indicate that which is conditional on past events\u2014presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis.\r\n\r\nBuilding a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle\u2019s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle\u2019s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being\u2014perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now.\r\n\r\nFor, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this \u201cthesis A\u201d); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this \u201cthesis B\u201d). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena.\r\n\r\nNormally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions\u2014what some call \u201cabsolute\u201d necessity\u2014is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means?\r\n[introduction p. 19-20]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Acta Antiqua |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 273-287 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle’s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle’s other works—with the possible exception of the Metaphysics—it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9elANNxfsrgxsis |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1023","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1023,"authors_free":[{"id":1542,"entry_id":1023,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC","main_title":{"title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"},"abstract":"A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle\u2019s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle\u2019s other works\u2014with the possible exception of the Metaphysics\u2014it revealed aspects of Aristotle\u2019s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9elANNxfsrgxsis","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1023,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Antiqua","volume":"48","issue":"1-2","pages":"273-287"}},"sort":[2008]}
| Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 5-28 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 29-47 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Publication Place | University of London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 46, Supplement 78 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":157,"authors_free":[{"id":1851,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1852,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Sheppard","free_last_name":"Anne D.","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"},"abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 107-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
| Translator(s) |
| The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Alexander on Physics 2.9 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 19-30 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius’s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included—and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus’s commentary thereon, and with Alexander’s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius’s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander’s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says:
"For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something."
Perhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless.
If my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno’s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless.
In Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate “the for-the-sake-of-something,” but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using “conditional” or “hypothetical” necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, “absolute” to indicate that which is conditional on past events—presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis.
Building a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle’s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle’s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being—perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now.
For, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders’ merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this “thesis A”); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this “thesis B”). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena.
Normally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions—what some call “absolute” necessity—is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means?
[introduction p. 19-20] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1172","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1172,"authors_free":[{"id":1747,"entry_id":1172,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9","main_title":{"title":"Alexander on Physics 2.9"},"abstract":"I want to draw your attention today to a report of Alexander in Simplicius\u2019s Physics commentary which, as far as I can tell, has escaped the notice of everyone, myself included\u2014and I have rather less excuse than most, for, as we shall see, the report connects directly with issues about which I have written in other contexts. That was concerned with On Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away [hereafter GC] 2.11, with Philoponus\u2019s commentary thereon, and with Alexander\u2019s discussion in some of the Quaestiones; the present paper, with Simplicius\u2019s help, extends the discussion to Physics 2.9. Alexander\u2019s GC commentary and the relevant part of his Physics commentary are lost. The text that will chiefly concern us is (3) (2) in the appendix, where Simplicius says:\r\n\r\n \"For my part, I do not understand why Alexander says that unqualified necessity excludes what is for the sake of something.\"\r\n\r\nPerhaps indeed he does understand why Alexander says this, and this is a disingenuous way of introducing a problem; but the problem may be real nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIf my story has a moral, it is, I suppose, that those who have an interest in Alexander should be more proactive than I confess I have myself been in looking up the later commentaries on passages of Aristotle that are of interest in the context of Alexander, in order to see whether Alexander is recorded as having had interesting comments to make. Or, if that is a counsel of perfection, I think it shows that we need a collection of the reports of Alexander by name in later Greek commentaries on the Physics, rather like Andrea Rescigno\u2019s recent edition of the fragments of the De Caelo commentary. We already have the fragments of the Physics commentary preserved in Arabic, and the fragments in Greek identified by Marwan Rashed; there may be scope, if copyright and other issues can be overcome, for a compendium assembling all this material in the order of the passages of Aristotle commented upon. This would indeed in a way be assistance for the lazy, making nothing available that individual scholars could not find for themselves in published sources, but it might be useful nonetheless.\r\n\r\nIn Physics 2.9, Aristotle continues his polemic against those who explain nature in terms of necessitating material interactions, arguing that necessity is present in all things that have goal-directedness, if I may so translate \u201cthe for-the-sake-of-something,\u201d but that the necessity of matter is not the cause or explanation of what comes about. There is, by the way, in my view a systematic ambiguity in the terminology commonly used here; necessity can be conditional either on a future goal or on some past event, but the custom has developed of using \u201cconditional\u201d or \u201chypothetical\u201d necessity to indicate that which relates to the future, \u201cabsolute\u201d to indicate that which is conditional on past events\u2014presumably because there is no longer anything hypothetical about these. But, especially in the ancient Peripatetic context where, as Patzig pointed out, qualifications attach to predicates rather than to whole propositions, this could be misleading from the point of view of logical analysis.\r\n\r\nBuilding a house necessarily requires bricks; but the fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. (It could be an explanation of why you have a brick house, or more strictly of why, given that you have a house, it is a brick one; but that is a different point.) To be sure, Aristotle\u2019s argument in 2.9 is open to challenge in that he takes his examples from human goal-directed activity, and the extrapolation from these to natural processes is open to question. David Sedley well suggests that the self-building wall may be a parody of atomist cosmogony. A human being requires human flesh and human bones; but, Aristotle\u2019s view would seem to imply, human flesh does not self-assemble into a human being\u2014perhaps because it cannot even be human flesh, except homonymously, if it is not part of a human being. There are well-known problems here about how the final cause of embryonic development can also be the efficient cause, but I do not propose to pursue them now.\r\n\r\nFor, more important in the present context, is a distinction indicated by the example I have just used. The fact that you, or the builder, purchased a pile of bricks from the builders\u2019 merchant is not an explanation of why you now have a house. Why not? Well, presumably, because sitting looking at the pile of bricks will not give you a house; you, or the builder, need to do something with them. Bricks not only do not explain the coming-to-be of a brick house (let us call this \u201cthesis A\u201d); they do not necessarily lead to it, either (let us call this \u201cthesis B\u201d). In more formal language, they are necessary but not sufficient conditions. For the Presocratic natural philosophers whom Aristotle is attacking, on the other hand, material interactions are both sufficient conditions for, and explanations of, natural phenomena.\r\n\r\nNormally, an explanation will be a sufficient condition, or at least that one of a number of jointly sufficient conditions that is relevant in the explanatory context. Consequently, to say that material actions may necessitate, i.e., may be sufficient for, but may not explain, some event, or in the contexts with which we are concerned the coming-to-be of something, is to raise the specter of over-determination. If natural comings-to-be are necessitated by matter and its interactions\u2014what some call \u201cabsolute\u201d necessity\u2014is there any room left in which to argue that they are explained by the purposes or goals for which they are necessary means?\r\n[introduction p. 19-20]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RKYRiSGUGVV8cTg","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1172,"section_of":1171,"pages":"19-30","is_catalog":null,"book":null},"article":{"id":1172,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"19-30"}},"sort":["Alexander on Physics 2.9"]}
| Title | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Publication Place | University of London |
| Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
| Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 46, Supplement 78 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/UsvEmjeEeL17itA |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":157,"authors_free":[{"id":1851,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1852,"entry_id":157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Sheppard","free_last_name":"Anne D.","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"},"abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus"]}
| Title | Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus’ Receptacle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 29-47 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized. Some commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call "atoms" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle. What is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting "live" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant "dead" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate. There is an important consideration about Aristotle’s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well. Firstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"702","_score":null,"_source":{"id":702,"authors_free":[{"id":1043,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1044,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1045,"entry_id":702,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"},"abstract":"The nature of the receptacle, presented in Timaeus 48e-53b, is controversial. It is unclear whether the receptacle is supposed to be matter, space, or in some way both matter and space. Plato seems to intend some reform of the way in which we refer to phenomena, but the nature of that reform is far from clear. Can the evidence of Aristotle help us here? Aristotle and some of his commentators have interesting and significant things to say about the receptacle and its contents, more perhaps than is generally recognized.\r\n\r\nSome commentators believe that the receptacle passage (Timaeus 48e-53b) is self-contained and can be taken in isolation from the rest of the Timaeus. In my view, that is quite wrong. Geometrical atomism (GA) is introduced at 53c. By geometrical atomism, I mean the theory that the elements (earth, water, air, fire) can be analyzed into three-dimensional particles of definite shape (cubes, octahedra, icosahedra, tetrahedra, which I shall call \"atoms\" in the modern sense), and that these particles can be further subdivided into planes, and these planes into one of two types of triangle. GA does not sit entirely easily with the receptacle passage. It may develop or modify the receptacle theory, and certainly, it has a considerable bearing on the nature of the receptacle. At the very least, we need to think carefully about how the entities proposed by GA relate to the receptacle.\r\n\r\nWhat is undeniable is that the rest of the Timaeus (53c to the end) discusses phenomena in terms of GA and not the receptacle. We get an analysis of objects, human beings, human perception, and qualities resulting from the interaction of objects and human beings, entirely in terms of GA without any mention of the receptacle. In my view, we often underrate the importance of GA in relation to the receptacle. It may well be the case that Plato was primarily interested in philosophy rather than science, and that, to us, the receptacle is interesting \"live\" philosophy, while GA is merely redundant \"dead\" science. However, Plato in the Timaeus was interested in at least the broad outlines of a teleological account of the cosmos and humans, and GA is certainly an important and integral part of that. What we find philosophically interesting in the Timaeus is no sure guide to what Plato or the ancients following Plato found important, and hopefully, this is something that an examination of Aristotle and some of his commentators may illuminate.\r\n\r\nThere is an important consideration about Aristotle\u2019s evidence in relation to these issues. Undoubtedly, the best-known passage on the receptacle in Aristotle is Physics 4.2, on the supposed identification of space and matter in Plato. However, there are passages in De Caelo and De Generatione et Corruptione, as well as the commentaries on those works, which deal with the nature of the entities supposed by GA and their relation to the receptacle, and how Plato explains changing phenomena. We need to look at and evaluate this less well-known evidence as well.\r\n\r\nFirstly, I will give a brief overview of the receptacle passage and some of the main problems of interpretation relating to it. I will then look briefly at the relation between the receptacle passage and GA. We will then be in a position to examine the evidence of Aristotle and some of his commentators on these matters. [introduction p. 29-30]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yAlkhsJc93zuSvB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":702,"section_of":157,"pages":"29-47","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and some of his Commentators on the Timaeus\u2019 Receptacle"]}
| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}
| Title | Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
| Pages | 107-126 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | Bodnár, István M. , Fortenbaugh, William W. |
| Translator(s) |
The picture of Eudemus’ Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle’s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle’s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition. What I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus’ methods and contributions—while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1024","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1024,"authors_free":[{"id":1543,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1544,"entry_id":1024,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1545,"entry_id":1024,"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}}],"entry_title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time","main_title":{"title":"Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"},"abstract":"The picture of Eudemus\u2019 Physics that has emerged from consideration of this selection of passages is not radically different from the general scholarly consensus sketched at the outset. Eudemus follows Aristotle quite closely. Sometimes his exposition is more compressed than Aristotle\u2019s discussion, sometimes he expands it; often he draws upon his knowledge of other parts of Aristotle\u2019s Physics or other Aristotelian doctrines, and often he seems to strive for a more systematic exposition.\r\n\r\nWhat I hope this paper may have achieved is, through the consideration of particular passages and arguments, and by setting passages from Eudemus against their Aristotelian originals, to fill out that general picture and enable us to assess Eudemus\u2019 methods and contributions\u2014while remaining mindful always that the extent to which we can do this is necessarily limited by the extent of the available evidence, generous though it may be in comparison with that for many of the lost works of antiquity. [conclusion p. 124]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2B6FJ97qw2g6oAO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1024,"section_of":287,"pages":"107-126","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudemus' Physics: Change, Place and Time"]}
| Title | Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 5-28 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gregory, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus’ theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus’ astronomy, and of Eudoxus’ astronomy, whereby Eudoxus’ work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus’ work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus’ model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zuozQiu69DMzr3V |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"658","_score":null,"_source":{"id":658,"authors_free":[{"id":948,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":147,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gregory, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Gregory","norm_person":{"id":147,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Gregory","full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/99594623X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":949,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":950,"entry_id":658,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus","main_title":{"title":"Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"},"abstract":"Whether the astronomy of the Timaeus had any significant influence on Eudoxus\u2019 theory of homocentric spheres is a matter of contention. Some commentators deny any such influence. Here I argue for a view of the Timaeus\u2019 astronomy, and of Eudoxus\u2019 astronomy, whereby Eudoxus\u2019 work was as much a natural development of the Timaeus as Callippus\u2019 work was of Eudoxus. I also argue for an important interpretative principle. This is that Plato, Eudoxus and Callippus could not account for all the phenomena they were aware of, and were aware of that fact. If the Timaeus presents a prototype, Eudoxus can then be seen to develop this astronomy, making the model more sophisticated and complex while staying within the cosmological principles, and attempting to solve the key problems which were left unsolved by the Timaeus model. He does this in much the same way as Callippus made Eudoxus\u2019 model more complex and sophisticated, and attempted to solve the leading problems in that model. I also consider some further objections to a significant interaction between Plato and Eudoxus, based on supposed philosophical differences, dating, and the evidence of later commentators. I conclude that these provide no significant obstacle to considering there to be a fruitful liaison between Plato and Eudoxus. [introduction, p. 5]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zuozQiu69DMzr3V","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":147,"full_name":"Gregory, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":658,"section_of":157,"pages":"5-28","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Eudoxus, Callipus and the Astronomy of the Timaeus"]}
| Title | Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle’s Categories in the First Century BC |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | Acta Antiqua |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 273-287 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Sharples, Robert W. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle’s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle’s other works—with the possible exception of the Metaphysics—it revealed aspects of Aristotle’s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9elANNxfsrgxsis |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1023","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1023,"authors_free":[{"id":1542,"entry_id":1023,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC","main_title":{"title":"Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"},"abstract":"A re-examination of the question of why, during the revival of interest in Aristotle\u2019s esoteric works in the first century BC, the Categories played such a prominent role. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest precisely because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle\u2019s other works\u2014with the possible exception of the Metaphysics\u2014it revealed aspects of Aristotle\u2019s thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9elANNxfsrgxsis","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1023,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Acta Antiqua","volume":"48","issue":"1-2","pages":"273-287"}},"sort":["Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle\u2019s Categories in the First Century BC"]}