Excerpt from Doxographi Graeci: Collegit Recensuit Prolegomenis Indicibusque Instruxit Ceterum in superioribus suis verbis dicebat: 'cuius para sub corruptione iacet, necesse id est totum quoque obnoxium esse corruptioni.' nec enim sine toto partes constare poseunt neque totum sine partibus. Nam mundus univeraua unum corpus est e multis partibus a deo compositum. Nec tamen ut alii qui dam sapientum animal esse mundus censeudus est sed arti ficinsa harmonia concretionem nactus. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and (...) classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

This volume contains the proceedings of a conference on the Presocratic philosophers Pythagoras and Heraclitus. Investigated by a team of international scholars are key problems in doxography, Pythagorean Communities, logos, harmony, psychology, flux, number theory, ethics, and theology. Designed for all students of ancient philosophy, this volume will spur further investigations into these cardinal concerns of early Greek scientific thinkers.

Le développement conjoint, au cours du XVIIIe siècle, de la méthode historico-critique et du perspectivisme est à l'origine d'une tension nouvelle dans le traitement de l'histoire de la philosophie. L'article analyse brièvement quelques réactions, plus ou moins radicales, à cette configuration féconde. Zeller, Dilthey, Yorck, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, Rorty, sont les principaux témoins. Il est aussi suggéré que la « doxographie », en dépit de la réputation détestable dont elle jouit, aussi bien chez les historiens que chez les philosophes, demeure (...) une composante importante de toute réflexion sur la relation de la philosophie à son passé. The joint development, in the course of the XVIIIth century, of the historico-critical method on the one hand and of a self-conscious perspectivism on the other hand, created a new tension in the handling of the history of philosophy. In the following, I sketch some characteristic ways, hard or more compromising, of dealing with this lasting and, I suggest, productive tension. Zeller, Dilthey, Yorck, Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, Rorty are my main witnesses. In the wake of an analysis made by M. Frede, I also suggest, in the light of this tension, that « doxography », despite the detestable reputation the genre has among philosophers and historians of philosophy alike, remains an important component of any reflexion about the relationship between philosophy and its past. (shrink)

The text of this poem, already corrupt in the Palatine, has had a turbulent history over the last two centuries. Here is Page's version, the translation in Gow–Page, and my own somewhat expanded apparatus: I who in time past was good for five or nine times, now, Aphrodite, hardly manage once from early night to sunrise. The thing itself, – already often only at half-strength, – is gradually dying. That's the last straw. Old age, old age, what will you do (...) later when you come to me, if even now I am as languid as this. (shrink)

The first book of the De anima contains Aristotle’s psychological doxography. It is usually divided into two sections: the mere listing of the previous theories on the soul (I.2) and their critical examination (I.3–5). Despite such apparent neatness, various discrepancies emerge and the structure of the doxography remains obscure. To account for such problems and for the general agenda of the psychological doxography, I shall propose a tripartite model, arguing that Aristotle’s grouping of his predecessors’ theories is (...) based on three criteria (motion, cognition and incorporeality), all of which are to be referred back to one overarching criterion (primacy). After collecting some textual evidence in favour of this interpretation, I shall deal with an apparent difficulty faced by the suggested model, namely chapter 4. Based on the results thus reached, I conclude that the doxography of De anima i significantly contributes to the development of Aristotle’s own psychological theory and to defining its role within his wider philosophical project. (shrink)

"Le Théétète pose la question de la connaissance, propose trois définitions, les réfute toutes trois. Devant cette apparente aporie, les commentateurs s'interrogent sur l'intention de Platon : abandonne-t-il la théorie des Formes ou décide-t-il de la refonder? Cette alternative, en partie induite par une lecture évolutionniste des dialogues, domine l'exégèse de ce dialogue. L'auteur en propose une approche radicalement différente : le Théétète n'est pas un dialogue aporétique, mais un dialogue doxographique. Platon y expose les thèses de ses prédécesseurs pour (...) mieux les réfuter. Anne Balansard consacre son analyse à la première partie du Théétète. Elle montre comment la greffe d'une physique mobiliste sur l'épistémologie protagoréenne de l'homme mesure est partie intégrante d'une stratégie réfutative. Ce faisant, elle récuse toutes les lectures qui font du mobilisme du Théétète une version radicalisée du devenir platonicien. En travaillant sur la doxographie platonicienne dans la première partie du Théétète, l'auteur prolonge la réflexion qu'elle avait initiée, dans son précédent livre, sur les rapports de Platon à ses prédécesseurs."--P. [4] of cover. (shrink)

This volume brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography, in order to investigate and present shared contexts and questions, and to initiate future collaboration among the fields of classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy.

This is the first book fully dedicated to Indian philosophical doxography. It examines the function such dialectical texts were intended to serve in the intellectual and religious life of their public. It looks at Indian doxography both as a witness of inter and intra sectarian dialogues, and as a religious phenomenon. It argues that doxographies represent dialectical exercises, indicative of a peculiar religious attitude to plurality, and locate these 'exercises' within a known form of 'yoga' dedicated to the (...) cultivation of 'knowledge' or 'gnosis' (jñāna). Concretely, the book presents a critical examination of three Sanskrit doxographies: the Madhyamakahṛdayakārikā of the Buddhist Bhāviveka, the Ṣaḍdarśanasamuccaya of the Jain Haribhadra, and the Sarvasiddhāntasaṅgraha attributed to the Advaitin Śaṅkara, focusing on each of their respective presentation of the Mīmāṃsā view. It is the first time that the genre of doxography is considered beyond its literary format to ponder its performative dimension, as a spiritual exercise. Theoretically broad, the book reaches out to academics in Religious Studies, Indian Philosophy, Indology, and Classical Studies. (shrink)

This paper examines two doxographies present in Ḥunayn’s summaries to Galen’s treatise On the Elements. We track the origin of these doxographies back, from Greek scolia to Galen’s treatise to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, which we show to be the ultimate source. We also point out that Simplicius’ Commentary inspired an interpretation of Parmenides and Melissus that we find in Ḥunayn’s texts. This allows us to see remnants of Simplicius’ Commentary in the Arabic world and to shed some light (...) on the production of these summaries to Galen’s work called Summaria Alexandrinorum. (shrink)

L’écriture généalogique et l’enchaînement de filiations en catalogue sont un des modes narratifs caractéristiques de la mythographie, mais on les retrouve aussi bien au cœur d’un corpus apparemment distinct, celui de la doxographie. Que ce soit G. Dumézil, composant différents dispositifs autobiographiques, ou Diogène Laërce, le doxographe utilise la systématique généalogique pour mettre de l’ordre dans l’histoire d’une transmission du savoir. Faut-il voir cependant une simple adaptation du modèle généalogique par la doxographie ? La relation de maître à disciple est-elle (...) la transposition immédiate de la relation de filiation ? C’est en fait un parcours complexe qui se dessine entre ces deux pôles, qui passe par la question de l’origine et de la transmission de la loi. De Minos à Pythagore, entre philosophie politique de l’époque classique et mystique néo-platonicienne, l’ordre généalogique ne va pas de soi et possède une histoire propre.Genealogical Order: Between Mythography and Doxography. Genealogical writing and the listing of filiations represent one of the narrative modes characteristic of mythography, but they may also be found within the apparently distinct corpus of doxography. Doxographers such as G. Dumézil, who wrote a number of autobiographies, and Diogenus Laertius, make use of genealogical systematics to put in order the story of knowledge transmission. Is it simply a case of an adaptation of the genealogical model to the doxographic narrative? Is the relationship between master and disciple just a transposition of filiation? In fact, a more complex pattern develops between mythography and doxography, linked to the theme of origin and transmission of the law. From Minos to Pythagoras, between classical political philosophy and neo-platonic mysticism, genealogical order is not self-evident and has its own history. (shrink)

Scholarly dissatisfaction with Aristotle’s fallacy of accident has traditionally focused on his examples, whose compatibility with the fallacy’s definition has been doubted time and again. Besides a unified account of the fallacy of accident itself, the paper provides a formalized analysis of its several examples in Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi. The most problematic instances are dealt with by means of an internal reconstruction of their features as conveyed by Aristotle’s text and an extensive survey of their interpretation in the Byzantine and (...) Latin exegetical tradition. Carefully handled a doxographical approach, as opposed to rapid results oriented practices, proves to be most effective in that it supplies both useful albeit ordinarily overlooked insights and a comprehensive framework of reference for further investigations. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to examine heraclitean fragments evoking the metaphor of rivers and waters flowing, usually associated by tradition to the image of reality in becoming and the conception of nature as a more or less disordered streaming. These fragments are certainly among the most celebrated and lucky fragments of the philosopher of Ephesus, which can be explained by the fact that they have been used since Plato and Aristotle, to represent in an exemplary way the philosophical (...) perspective of Heraclitus. These are the three fragments which appear in the collection of Diels and Kranz under the numbers 12, 49a and 91, and correspond, in the edition of Marcovich to the numbers 40, 40c2 and 40c3. This mere indication brings out the problem that should be given priority review with regard to the three mentioned fragments, this is the one of their authenticity. Admitted by Diels and Kranz and by a certain number of scholars, among which stands out Mouraviev, it is rejected, with respect fragments 49a and 91 DK [40c2 and 40c3 Marcovich] by other commentators, and primarily by Marcovich for whom, as suggested by the numbering that adopted itself, should be considered as mere reminiscences of the fragments 12 DK [40 Marcovich], the only authentic. (shrink)

_Aëtiana IV: Towards an Edition of the Aëtian Placita: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium, 1–3 December 2015_ provides a critical discussion from various angles by a plurality of authors of the reconstruction of the _Placita_ and the relevance of the compendium for the history of Greek philosophy.