Тема выпуска



страница24/27
Дата22.06.2019
Размер3.85 Mb.
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27

Andrey Sсhetnikov


ΣΙΓΜΑ. The Centre of Educational Projects, Novosibirsk, Russia, schetnikov@ngs.ru

Geminοs. Introduction to the Phenomena 

Introduction, Russian translation and notes

Language: Russian, translated from the Greek

Issue: ΣΧΟΛΗ 5.2 (2011) 174–233

Keywords: Scientific manual, Greek science, astronomy, calendars, stars, planets

Abstract: A commented Russian translation of the Introduction to the Phenomena (Elementa astronomiae, Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὰ Φαινόμενα) by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Geminοs of Rhodes (Γεμῖνος ὁ Ῥόδιος, fl. c. 70 BC). This introductory astronomy book, based on the works of earlier astronomers such as  Hipparchus, treats the following general subjects: the zodiac; the motion of the Sun; the constellations; the celestial sphere; days and nights; the risings and settings of the zodiacal signs; calendars; phases of the Moon; eclipses; star phases; terrestrial zones and geographical places; and the uselessness of the stars for making weather predictions. The text is prepared for the participants of educational project “ΤΕΧΝΗ. Theoretical foundations of Arts, sciences and technology in the Greco-Roman World" (Novosibirsk, Russia).
Anna Afonasina

The centre for Ancient philosophy and the classical tradition,

Novosibirsk State University, Russia, afonasina@gmail.com

Balter Burkert. Astronomy and Pythagoreanism



Language: Russian, translated from the English

Issue: ΣΧΟΛΗ 5.2 (2011) 234–311

Keywords: Pythagoras, Plato, Philolaus, Greek astronomy, lore and science, harmony of the spheres, planets, cosmos

Abstract: A Russian translation of a chapter on astronomy from the famous book of Prof. Walter Burkert is prepared for the participants of educational project “ΤΕΧΝΗ. Theoretical foundations of Arts, sciences and technology in the Greco-Roman World" (Novosibirsk, Russia). The chapter treats the structure of the world and planetary system; the theory of planetary movements; the cosmos of Philolaus; harmony of the spheres and astral immortality. Original publication: Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon (Nürnberg, 1962); prepared on the basis of the revised English edition: Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, tr. by E. Minar (Cambridge, MA, 1972).

ΣΧΟΛΗ

Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция

2011. Том 5. Выпуск 2

Научное редактирование Е. В. Афонасина

Новосибирск: Ред.-изд. центр Новосиб. гос. ун-та, 2011. 213 c.

ISSN 1995-4328 (Print) ISSN 1995-4336 (Online)

Античная космология и астрономия

Выпуск журнала посвящен античной космологии и астрономии. В него включен курс лекций Майкла Чейза «Дискуссии о вечности мира в поздней античности», прочитанный в мае 2011 г. в НГУ, а также два перевода: глава из монографии знаменитого историка античности Вальтера Буркерта, посвященная античной астрономии, и перевод «Введений в явления» Гемина. Эти тексты подготовлены специально для участников семинара по истории античной науки, который пройдет в Сибирском научном центре в августе 2011 г. при поддержке Института «Открытое общество». Журнал доступен в электронном виде на собственной странице www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/, а также в составе следующих электронных библиотек: www.elibrary.ru (Научная электронная библиотека) и www.ceeol.com (Central and Eastern European Online Library).



ΣΧΟΛΗ

Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition

2011. Volume 5. Issue 2

Edited by Eugene V. Afonasin

Novosibirsk: State University Press, 2011. 213 c.

ISSN 1995-4328 (Print) ISSN 1995-4336 (Online)



Ancient Cosmology and Astronomy

The second issue of the journal is entirely devoted to ancient cosmology and astronomy. It includes lectures by Michael Chase, “Discussions on the eternity of the world”, delivered in May 2011 at Novosibirsk, a Russian translation of a chapter on ancient astronomy from Walter Burkert’s “Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism”, and a commented Russian translation of the Elementa astronomiae by Geminus. These texts are prepared for the participants of the international school “Τεχνη. Theoretical Foundations of Arts, Sciences and Technology in the Greco-Roman World” (August 2011, Siberian Scientific Centre) organized by the “Centre for Ancient philosophy and the classical tradition” and sponsored by the “Open Society” Institute (Budapest).The journal is available on-line at the following addresses: www.nsu.ru/classics/schole/ (journal’s home page); and www.ceeol.com (Central and Eastern European Online Library).



Компьютерная верстка и корректура Е. В. Афонасина

Подписано в печать 25.07.2011. Заказ №

Формат 70 x 108 1/16. Офсетная печать. Уч.-изд. л. 11,8

Редакционно-издательский центр НГУ,



630090, Новосибирск-90, ул. Пирогова, 2

1 Versions of this paper were given at the Department of Greek and Roman Studies of the University of Victoria, the Universidad Panamericana in Mexico City, and at Novosibirsk University, Siberia, in the context of the project “ΤΕΧΝΗ, Theoretical Foundations of Arts, Sciences and Technology in the Greco-Roman World”, sponsored by the Higher Education Support Program of the Open Society Institute. My thanks to all the participants in these seminars.

2 A collider at Institute of Nuclear Physics, Akademgorodok, Russia.

3 Fr. 54b Lang

4 Fr. 33; 54 Heinze.

5 Cf. Simplicius, In de Caelo 306, 16-307, 11 (Cherniss 422) ; Crantor fr. 2 ; 4 Mullach.

6 Cf. Porphyry ap. Proclus, In Tim., I, 382, 26 ff., Simplicius, In Phys. 1121, 25 ff. More precisely, Plutarch, Atticus and Galen argued for a literal understanding of the account of creation in the Timaeus; all the other commentators (Apuleius, Albinus, Taurus, Alcinoos, Porphyry and all subsequent Neoplatonists) argued for some form of symbolic or allegorical interpretation.

7 See especially Timaeus 28B.

8 Cf. Praechter, RE V A 1 (1934), 64.

9 Cf. W. Baltes 1976, 105-121.

10 See, with Baltes, De Caelo 280b6 ff. (examples of touching and moving) ; Physics 258b10 ff. (examples of the principles (arkhai) and of what is partless (ameres)).

11 Simpl., In Cat., 1154, 2 ff.

12 R. Sorabji 1987, 164. The doubts expressed by Alan Cameron about the extent and efficacy of Justinian's edicts are probably ill-founded, cf. Ph. Hoffmann 1987, 197 and n. 77.

13 This return is variously referred to as epistrophê, anagôgê, or anadromê; cf. Ph. Hoffmann 1987, 210.

14 See, for instance, Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, edited with an Introduction by Arnold I. Davidson, translated by Michael Chase, Oxford/Cambridge, Mass. : Basil Blackwell, 1995 ; Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy ?, translated by Michael Chase, Harvard University Press, 2002.

15 For an excellent analysis of Aristotle's arguments on this point, see A. Ross 2010.

16 This is how Aristotle interprets the cosmogony of the Timaeus, cf. On the Heavens 1, 10-12.

17 Cf. W. Wieland 1960, 293; R. Sorabji 1983, 268-272: Baltes, Weltentstehung 1; L. Judson 1987, 179.

18 I. Hadot 1985, 5.

19 Cf. Ph. Hoffmann 1987, 205 n. 109, with further references.

20 According to Damascius (Life of Isidore, fr. 315 Zinzten), Ammonius derived financial benefits from this arrangement. Contra: L. S. B. MacCoull 193, 2.

21 See especially I. Hadot 1978 (= English translation 2004), passim. A good summary of the debate may be found in I. M. Croese 1998, 12f.

22 The main one of these being the preservation of the manuscripts that constitute the so-called “Collection philosophique”. Cf. M. Rashed 2002.

23 This “école Platonicienne de Harran”, as Tardieu calls it, was still in existence in the 10th century.

24 If this were the case, however, it might be hard to explain Simplicius' repeated, and apparently sincere claim that he had not read Philoponus’ work Against Proclus. It is hard to believe Simplicius would not have read this work if he was at Athens or Alexandria, where it must have been readily available.

25 Simplicius first wrote a commentary on the De Caelo, then on the Physics, and finally on the Categories. The authenticity of the commentary on the De anima attributed to Simplicius in the mss. is disputed (I. Hadot 1985, 22).

26 I. Hadot 1985, 7.

27 The first redaction of Philoponus In Phys. dates from May 5, 517 (L. S. B. MacCoull (1995, 49). A. Ross (2010, passim) is in error when he affirms that the Philoponian arguments he examines come from this commentary. They are taken from the Contra Aristotelem, as we shall see below. Mahdi (1967, 234-235) suggested that Ammonius chose Philoponus to edit his class-notes because “it was evidently convenient to have as an intermediary or mouthpiece a Christian who was a competent judge of public opinion to make sure that nothing offensive to public sensibilities met the public eye”. This is pure speculation, and fails to explain why Philoponus was passed over when it came to deciding on Ammonius' successor as head of the Alexandrian school. In general, Mahdi's analyses, based largely on the work of Max Meyerhof, have been rendered obsolete by subsequent research.

28 This has been questioned by Lang and Macro 2001, who affirm that the De aeternitate mundi is a philosophical work bereft of Christian apologetics, and that, in general, “there is virtually a complete absence of evidence for a Christian committment in Philoponus' philosophical writings”. This claim seems patently absurd, and has been persuasively refuted by M. Share 2005, 4 ff.: see, for instance, De aet. mundi VI, 28, p. 229, 9-11 where Philoponus claims Plato in the Timaeus took his doctrines “from the Holy Scriptures, as has been well pointed out by some of those who are on our side” (καὶ τοῦτο πάλιν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἀναλεξάμενος, ὡς καλῶς τινες τῶν ἡμετέρων ἐπεσημήναντο).

29 L. S. B. MacCoull (1995, 48) refers to this work as containing Philoponus' “pathbreaking rejection of the steady-state universe in favor of a ‘Big-Bang Theory’ consistent with the Christian doctrine of Creation”. Less tendentiously, it may be described as a work in which Philoponus argues for a literal interpretation of Plato's Timaeus against the cosmological doctrines of Aristotle.

30 R. Sorabji in C. Wildberg 1987, 24.

31 Al-Fārābī, Against John the Grammarian, 4, 8, p. 257 Mahdi. For a critical evalutaion of this testimony, see U. Lang 2001, 7f. Ironically, Philoponus himself (aet. mundi 9, 4, 331, 20-25 Rabe) suggests that when Plato calls the world created by the Demiurge a “ happy god ” (eudaimôn theos), he was merely yielding to popular superstition, lest he should suffer the same fate as Socrates. Cf. K. Verrycken 1997, 278.

32 This is basically the view of K. Verrycken 1990; 1997.

33 Cf. H. Chadwick 1987, 42: “…Philoponus saw the Athens affair as an opportunity and a challenge, whether he wrote in order to attract Justinian's favour by an attack on the principal architect of late Neoplatonic dogmatics or to avert unwelcome attention from the Alexandrian philosophers by demonstrating that not all of them were motivated by a cold hatred of Chrstianity as Proclus was”. Some ancient sources claim Philoponus wrote his anti-Aristotelian works in order to make money; cf. K. Verrycken 1990, 258-263. L. S. B. MacCoull (1995, 52), for her part, explains Fārābī's report in the context of contemporary conflicts between Monophysite and Chalcedonian Christians.

34 Cf. H. Chadwick 1987. More precisely, Philoponus “broke away from the miaphysite communion and endured anathema for the sake of his rather abstruse Trinitarian doctrine” (U. Lang 2001, 8). On the theological background of Philoponus' Trinitarian works, see also L. B. S. MacCoull 2005, 412 ff. Philoponus was condemned a second time in 575, this time for his unorthodox views on the nature of the resurrection body, and again at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-681.

35 Simplicius, In Phys., p. 1130, 1 ff. Diels.

36 Ibid., 1133, 10.

37 Philoponus was probably born in Egypt around 490 (L. S. B. MacCoull 1995, 49), and died around 575 (eadem 2005, 415).

38 Simplicius, loc. cit., 1130, 5.

39 anoêtôn anthrôpôn 1130, 1. Scholten (1997, 14) suggests Philoponus may have written his De Opificio Mundi ca. 557 in order to prove that Christians were not simpletons who deserved the derision of their pagan colleagues. It has also been suggested (R. Walzer 1957 = 1962, 195 ; E. Behler 1965, 132) that this work was a response to critiques from the Christian side, who complained that Philoponus had not made enough use of Scripture in his previous polemical works.

40 This was, of course, the aspect of Philoponus' thought that was appealing to, and influential upon, Galileo ; cf. M. Rashed 2004.

41 On the question of the identity and ontological rank of the Demiurge, see R. Sorabji 2004, vol. II, § 8 (e), pp. 170-173, with further references. See also M. Chase, “What does Porphyry mean by theôn patêr?”, Dionysius 22, Dec. 2004, p. 77-94, esp. pp. 88 ff.

42 1987, 209 & n. 129.

43 Simplicius, loc. cit., 1147, 1 ff.

44 Cf. Sorabji, 2004, II, § 9(b), pp. 180-181.

45 Cf. Sorabji, 2004, II, § 8(f), pp. 173-174.

46 A short treatise by al-Fārābī against Philoponus' arguments is extant (cf. Mahdi 1967), but it concerns only Philoponus' arguments against the De Caelo. It has been suggested that al-Fārābī's lost treatise On Changing Beings (Fī al-mawjūdāt al-mutaġayyira) was devoted to Philoponus' arguments against Physics 8 ; cf. H. Davidson 1969, 360 ; M. Rashed 2008 passim.

47 As Simplicius explains (p. 1152, 24 ff. ), Aristotle uses the following hypothetical sylllogism: if time is everlasting, then motion is everlasting. But the antecedent is true, therefore, so is the consequent.

48 On this terminology, cf. J. Jolivet 2006, 224 ff.

49 Cf. H. Davidson 1969, 363 ff. ; R. Sorabji 1983 ; 1987b, L. Judson 1987.

50 The question of the distinction between created and begotten is discussed at length by Ambrose of Milan, for instance, in Book I, Ch. 16 of his Exposition of the Christian Faith.

51 It was also the doctrine of the Gnostic Ebionites, for that matter: cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, Anacephalaeosis II, 30, 1.

52 On this theme, see George E. Karamanolis, Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006.

53 τὸν κῦνα σιμπλίκιον ὧδε μοι σκόπει φάσκοντα μύθους τοὺς λόγους μωϋσέως. Cf. Kalbfleisch's Preface to Simplicius, In Phys., CAG IX, p. XIV.

54 Examples include A. H. Sayce (1932), Abraham Shalom Yehuda (1933, 1934), Cyrus Gordon (1982), James Hoffmeier (“Some thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 and Egyptian Cosmology”), Atwell, “An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1”, J. D. Currid, “An examination of the Egyptian background of the Genesis Cosmology”, Biblische Zeitschrift 35 (1991), 18-40.

55 Aristotle, Topics, 1, 11, 105a3ff. Aristotle's examples of a questioner needing punishment are people in doubt as to whether or not they ought to honor the gods or love their parents; people who need perception are those unsure of whether or not snow is white. The passage is also quoted by David (Elias) 122, 22-24; Julian, To the Cynic Heracleios, 237D.

56 We recall that for Aristotle there can be no actual infinity, but only a potential one. See, for instance, Physics 3, 7, with the commentary of M. J. White 1992, 153 f. White identifies this conception of infinity as the ∞ sense of ‘infinite’, which “does not designate any totality (…) does not signify a cardinal or ordinal number. Rather, it signifies the absence of an upper bound”. The ∞ sense of ‘infinite’ is therefore to be distinguished from the Cantorian transfinite ordinal ω.

57 A glance at the contemporary literature show that there is not much agreement on exactly what this definition means. Problems include the nature and meaning of the term entelechia: is it a process, or the result of a process? Is the definition self-sufficient, self-explanatory and sufficiently clear, or is it ambiguous, requiring a previous understanding of Aristotle's doctrines of various levels of potentiality and actuality? Is the potentiality in question best understood as a two- or a three-place predicate? And so on.

58 See, for instance, Joachim on EN X, 4, p. 275: “The conversion from hexis into theoria or energeia is not a transition or a passage or process at all, but the instantaneous or timeless manifestation of what is already there”.

59 M. J. White 1992, 49.

60 The fact that Aristotle actually allows motion only in the categories of substance, quality, quantity and place – and even substantial change is ruled out in Physics V – has led modern commentators to think that Aristotle must have had in mind a “revised list” of the categories (I. Croese 1998, 152). Among ancient commentators, Theophrastus and Simplicius strove to prove that there really is motion in all ten categories.

61 Philoponus, In Phys., CAG 16, p. 341, 22 f. Vitelli.

62 This fact has often been overlooked, since the scholia are usually attributed in the manuscript to Yaḥyā’ ibn ‘Adī.

63 Cf. Metaph. Z 8, 1033a24-b19.

64 Cf. Metaph. Β 5, 1002a28-b5.

65 We have already seen that geomerical points and numerical units do not undergo any process of generation: cf. NE 10, 4, 1174b11 f. (Text 9c above).

66 I. Croese 1998, 51.

67 Quaestio I, 21, p. 34, 30 - 35, 15 Bruns.

68 The texts circulating in Arabic under Alexander's name have been edited by ‘Abdarraḥmān Badawī, Arisṭū ‘inda-l-‘Arab, Dirāsa wa-nuṣūṣ ġair manšūra, Cairo 1947 (Dirāsāt islāmīya 5). Cf. R. W. Sharples 1987, 1187-1188.

69 Treatise no. 8 in the enumeration of Alexander's works preserved in Arabic by A. Dietrich 1964.

70 We recall from Text 8b that for Aristotle, a motion is an activity that is incomplete because it has its goal outside itself, while an actuality or entelechy is an activity that has its goal within itself and is consequently complete at each instant.

71 As Hasnawi has shown (1994, p. 70 and n. 36), they go back at least to Alexander of Aphrodisias; cf. Mantissa, p. 143, 21-145, 3 Bruns.

72 Philoponus, Against Aristotle, fr. 115 Wildberg = Simplicius, In Phys., 1141, 10ff.

73 Cf. Proclus, In Parm., col. 1235, 21-22 Cousin ; Simplicius, In Cat., 356, 26 f. Kalbfleisch ; In Phys., 794, 35 Diels.

74 A. Hasnawi 1994, 89 ; Walzer, Greek into Arabic, 191-192. As Hasnawi notes, the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is a prominent element in the Long Version of the Theology of Aristotle and the Letter on Divine Science, which has led Zimmermann to suppose it must have been among the elements of the original Theology of Aristotle.

75 M. Rashed 2008, 106.

76 Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistānī, in Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Imtā‘ wa-l-mu’ānasa, vol. 3, p. 133 Amin/al-Zayn, quoted by M. Rashed 2008, 53.

77 Vol. 1, p. 375 ed. Abū Rīda.

78 Averroes, Epitome de Física (Filosofía de la naturaleza), Madrid 1987, p. 236.

79 Cf. Theologia, p. 31; 41; 70; 114 Badawi.

80 M. Rashed 2008, 48 ; C. d'Ancona 1995, 63ff.

81 On the fact that the First Cause is situated prior to time and eternity, cf. Theology, p. 7, 8 Badawi: wa-anna al-dar wa-l-zamān taḥtahā ; Liber de Causis prop. 2 (both cited by C. d'Ancona 2010).

82 K viii.46/D 93 (Lewis).

83 wa-anna haḏa-l-fi‘l yakūn minhu bi-ġair ḥaraka, p. 6, 11 Badawi.

84 In a fragment from his lost Commentary on the Physics (fr. 131 Smith = Simpl. In Phys. 106, 27 ff. Porphyry glosses athroos as meaning “timeless” (akhronos), and Simplicius tells us theat Porphyry “strove to show that alteration is timeless”. Simplicius disagrees: in cases such as freezing or illumination, the term athroos does not mean the phenomenon takes place outside of time, but that all its parts undergo the change simultaneously.

85 Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, 3, 79-80.

86 Many of the same technical terms appear in both texts, such as διαιωνίως, ἀπογεννᾶν, παράγειν.

87 As Croese notes (1998, 110-111), Aristotle speaks of lightning as ungenerated at Meteor. II, 9, 369b35-6, but only to reject the notion, which he attributes to Empedocles and Anaxagoras. She entertains the possibility that this might be Philoponus' own view, but in fact the example derives, in all likelihood, from Porphyry.

88 I have called attention elsewhere to other cases where Porphyrian doctrines influenced developing Christian dogma: cf. especially M. Chase, “La subsistence néoplatonicienne. De Porphyre à Théodore de Raithu”, Chôra: Revue d'Études Anciennes et Médiévales (Bucharest-Paris) 7-8 (2009-2010), p. 37-52.


89 ἐνέργειαν Ross, E,K Simpl. ; ἐντελέχειαν Bekker Λ Themist.

90 On the links between aiônios and authupostatos, cf. Proclus, Elements of Theology, props. 51-52 ; In Tim., I, p. 279, 15 ff. Diehl.

91 Plato, Timaeus, 27d6-28a1.

92 ἐστὶ Schenkl.

93 Cf. Dexippus, In Cat., 34, 15 Busse : τῆς κινήσεως εἰς ἐντελέχειαν ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως ὁδευούσης ; Simplicius, In Cat., p. 66, 24 Kalbfleisch : καὶ ἡ κίνησις τοίνυν ὁδὸς οὖσα ἀπὸ τοῦ δυνάμει εἰς ἐντελέχειαν.

94 A key concept in the Arabic work Liber de Causis.

95 Ousiôsis: see above,

Каталог: classics -> schole
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2014 Традиция платонизма
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2012 ΣΧΟΛΗ
schole -> 2009 ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> И классическая традиция Том выпуск 2012 ΣΧΟΛΗ
schole -> 2009 ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> ΣΧΟΛΗ Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция
schole -> S c o L h философское антиковедение и классическая традиция Том I выпуск 1


Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   ...   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27


База данных защищена авторским правом ©vossta.ru 2019
обратиться к администрации

    Главная страница