Jaap Mansfeld

Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus' "Elenchos" as a Source for Greek Philosophy

A new assessment of the philosophical traditions Hippolytus depends on and of his method of presentation. This book deals with the reception of the Presocratics, Plato and Aristotle in the first centuries CE, and is a major contribution to our knowledge of the various currents in Pre-Neoplatonic Greek philosophy.

Anaximander's Fragment: Another Attempt

I argue for the interpretation of Anaximander’s world as an unstable system. The inconsistency found by scholars in Theophrastus/Simplicius’ text disappears when it is realized that the elemental forces of nature do not change into each other. They are in the Infinite in time as well as in space. To some extent preference is given to Aristotle’s evidence over the doxographical vulgate habitually derived from Theophrastus, though of course the Theophrastean passage containing the verbatim quotation remains the primary witness.

Critical Note: Empedocles and his Interpreters

Though Peter Kingsleys paper contains a number of suggestions that are not without some value, his reconstruction of the doxographical traditions concerned with Empedocles four elements is not good enough. Anyone who compares ps.Plutarch (P) as a whole with Daibers German version of Qusta ibn Luqa (Q) as a whole see immediately that the latter is a translation of a variety of the former. It is absurd to argue from a single paragraphin this case I 3.20where Q as to the exegesis of the divine names Hera and Aidoneus agrees not with P 878A and others but with Stobaeus (S) and others, that Q translates a source other than P. This chapter looks more closely at the differences between these passages in P and S dealing with Empedocles.Keywords: doxographical traditions; Empedocles fragment; Peter Kingsley

Philo and Antiochus in the Lost Catulus

1. Cicero, as was1) and is well known, published two versions, or rather editions2), of his Acad?mica, of which we still have the second book of the first edition in two books and perhaps more than half of the first book of the second edition in four books3). The books of the first edition are known as Catulus and Lucullus, respectively; together with the lost Hortensias, which preceded them both chronologically and dramatically, they formed a sort of triptych. The extant section of the second edition is known as the Vano.

Heraclitus, Empedocles, and Others in a Middle Platonist Cento in Philo of Alexandria

the formal) relations between Philos Quaestiones and his other treatises has as yet been undertaken. In the present paper, I shall be concerned with the manner in which one important theme is treated in both groups of writings. With the indispensable support of the Bible de Philon and of the Index Philoneus, I have attempted to let myself be guided by Philos own selection of-in his view-interrelated scriptural passages, which he attempts to interpret in what turns out to be a surprisingly consistent way, and by his own use of doctrines and notions derived from Greek philosophy which are adduced for this purpose. This, it seems to me, is a reasonable procedure for the study of Philo, since one is able in this way to avoid the pitfalls both of superimposed systematization and parallelomegalomania. The theme at issue is concerned with the vicissitudes and condition of the human soul, which entails that in as far as Philo is concerned the exegesis is carried out on the allegorical level. It is important to keep this point in mind, for Philos line of demarcation between the literal and the allegorical interpretation does not correspond to ours. Often enough, his literal interpretations look quite allegorical to us, as for instance that dealing with the Platonic cosmology and theory of Forms which he believes is to be found by in

The Historical Hippocrates and the Origins of Scientific Medicine

“Between myth and skepticism”, or, medio tutissimus ibis … There are many decent things in Professor Joly’s1 paper. Summarizing and to a certain extent reshuffling the argument, I find that it is concerned with five questions : (1) Is there, in the Corpus Hippocraticum, a group of interrelated treatises which, with reasonable confidence, may be ascribed to Hippocrates of Cos himself? (2) Is there, in the Corpus, a group of treatises, including those to be attributed to Hippocrates, which may be ascribed to a Coan ‘school’? (3) Is there, in the Corpus, another group of treatises, to be attributed to another ‘school’, viz., the Cnidian? (4) What is the origin of the main and early body of the Corpus qua collection? (5) Is it acceptable that Hippocratic medicine, i.e., that of the Corpus in general and of its Coan section in particular, be considered a scientific discipline? With as a corollary: are the Coan and the Cnidian parts significantly different in this respect?

Heraclitus On the Psychology and Physiology of Sleep and On Rivers

In the pages which follow, I will attempt to interpret a group of fragments of Heraclitus (B 26, ? 77, ? 98, ? I2, ? 49 a) which are among his most difficult. Some have been rejected as being wholly or in part spurious, about others only guesses have been possible. I am well aware of the many difficulties complicating the interpretation of Heraclitus in general, and of the above-mentioned fragments in particular. The connection between those fragments which is proposed here as their interpretation, cannot be proved with anything even approaching certainty: it has to remain hypothetical. On the other hand, a study of recent scholarship left me with the impression that Heraclitus sometimes fares rather harshly at the hands of his commentators. I have no intention of abusing what I consider to be a necessary, if sometimes too severe, criticism. But I believe that an interpretation which endeavours to combine textual conservatism with imagination, while consciously trying to avoid the pitfalls of anachronism should be advanced, even if it be to a large extent unoriginal. The hypotheses offered below make use of material which (as far as I know) has not been used in this connection before and therefore, it is hoped, may be of use in future discussions of the problem.

Ps.Plutarch/Aëtius Plac. 4.11. Some comments on sensation and concept formation in Stoic Thought

Ps.Plutarch Plac. ch. 4.11 is an abridged Aetian chapter. Material that has been cut can be identified. In its original shape the chapter not only provided information on the perception of external objects but also, presumably, on inner perception, i.e. self-awareness. The mind of the newborn infant is not a mere tabula rasa, but a tabula capable of constructing faithful and lasting images of what is perceived. The two final lemmata of the chapter show how Placita literature could be updated, and so date the account.

Aëtius, Aristotle And Others On Coming-To-Be And Passing-Away

This chapter looks at passages in the De caelo and the De generatione et corruptione, On Coming To Be and Passing Away (GC) where the views of others on coming to be and passing away are reviewed and discussed by Aristotle. It focuses on the lemmata of Aet. 1.24 Diels and their immediate sources, viz., ps.-Plutarch and Stobaeus, in relation to passages in Aristotle and his tradition, and in Plato. The chapter also explains about Aet. 1.30 Diels in relation to passages in Aristotle and in relation to Aet. 1.24. Finally, it concerns with ps.-Galens abstract from Aet. 1.1.2 plus 1.30 Diels, or rather from ps.-Plutarchs Placita, chapters 1.1.2 and 1.30.Keywords:Aet. 1.24 Diels; Aet. 1.30 Diels; Aristotle; De caelo; Galens abstract; Plato