DOCSLIB.ORG

Information to Users

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information to Users INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UUI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI* UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE THE EPISTEMIC ORIGINS OF XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree o f Doctor of Philosophy By SCOTT L. STEARMAN Norman, Oklahoma 2002 UMI Number; 3040840 UMI UMI Microform 3040840 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Leaming Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Leaming Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 © Copyright by SCOTT L. STEARMAN 2002 Ail Rights Reserved. THE EPISTEMIC ORIGINS OF XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY A Dissertation APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY BY \l0cOfv<. i Q ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work could not have been accomplished without the assistance of others. While no one except the author bears responsibilities for its shortcomings, there are several individuals who helped create whatever intrinsic worth it has. Naturally foremost among these is Dr. Hugh Benson, whose direction, patience, and extraordinary willingness to work “a la distance” were greatly appreciated and undoubtedly necessary. This work in no way rises to the level o f his philosophical scholarship, but it was nevertheless aided by his inspirational example. There were many others, less involved in this work, but of great academic encouragement. Among these are the other members of my dissertation committee (Ellen Green, Chris Swoyer, Zev Trachtenberg, and Wayne Riggs) and those who stood cheering at a further distance; Dr. Bob Clarke and Dr. Mack Roark of Oklahoma Baptist University. There is also institutional gratitude to be expressed; first to the Emmanuel Baptist Church of Paris, which was generous in its sabbaticals and patient when its pastor was away in a library; second to Regents Park College of Oxford University, which allowed a summer as “visiting member of the senior common room” and access to the Bodleian Library. IV Naturally there were those less directly involved in this work’s philosophical argumentation, but who were no less significant to its development. My parents, Sam and Margaret Stearman, who paid for at least the beginning stages of my education (and a good deal else to boot), deserve more than they’ll ever receive. This is undoubtedly true o f my wife, Cecelia, who was always patient, loving, and willing to do what she could to help see these pages come to print. Knowing that finishing meant the opportunity to spend more time with her was a great motivation. ABBREVIATIONS A Testimonia (followed by a Diels-Kranz number) DK Diels-Kranz BCE Before the Common Era dating F Fragment (followed by a Diels-Kranz number) KRS Kirk, Raven, and Schofield LSJ Liddell, Scott, and Jones MXG Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia of pseudo-Aristotle VI TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................I Section I - Xenophanes’ Compartmentalized Interpretation Section 2 - Xenophanes’ Dates and Places Section 3 - Xenophanes’ Writings n. RELEVANT FRAGMENTS: Translation and Commentary .....................21 Section I - Introduction Section 2 - Translation and Commentary m. XENOPHANES’ NATURALISTIC EPISTEMOLOGY........................ 51 Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - The Appropriate Epistemological Model Section 3 - Xenophanes’ Fallibilism Applied to Divination IV. XENOPHANES’ NATURAL THEOLOGY........................................... 87 Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - The Content of Xenophanes’ Theology vu V. EPISTEMIC FOUNDATIONS AND THE FORMULATION OF XENOPHANES’ TH EO LO G Y .................................................................. 137 Section 1 - A New Understanding of the basis of Knowledge Section 2 - The Explanatory Method and Natural Phenomena Section 3 - The Explanatory Method and the Theological Reformation VI. CONCLUSION: A FINAL WORD ABOUT INFLUENCE................ 156 WORKS CITED ...............................................................................................................161 VUl ABSTRACT Xenophanes was the first ancient Greek to make explicitly philosophical statements about epistemology. He was also the first Pre-Socratic to attack traditional and popular religion, eventually forming a rudimentary natural theology. This monograph attempts to show the clear connection and mutual dependency of these two streams of thought. In the process of this demonstration, however, it is necessary to give an interpretation of both streams. Initially the extant firagments relating to Xenophanes’ epistemology or theology are translated with a brief commentary when a translation issue is paramount. Then a view of Xenophanes’ epistemology is developed, based upon this textual exegesis and two millennia of scholarship. It is argued that Xenophanes is not the empiricist, rationalist, or sceptic that he is sometimes portrayed as being. Rather he best fits the model (indeed a mold he helped create) of a naturalistic fallibilist. The same interpretive enterprise is attempted with his natural theology. A number of misunderstandings of Xenophanes’ beliefs are laid aside and a “minimalist” vision of his theological convictions is developed. It is found that Xenophanes is not a committed monotheist, or monist, as has sometimes been taught. His philosophical razor trims excessive adumbrations and speculations, and trims theology of many of its traditional aspects. IX The monograph continues by looking at how these two streams emerge from one single - albeit complex - commitment to a proto-scientific commitment to the observance of nature. It is this consistent, coherent, and widely cast observational activity that forms the basis of the Xenophanean revolution. The fifth chapter is an attempt to demonstrate the continuity between the scientific methodology of Xenophanes and ours today. In the end Xenophanes appears to be quite influential. This document ends by showing the evident appreciation that Socrates held for this thinker. It was primarily through Socrates that Xenophanes would extend his formidable ideas through centuries of western civilization. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 61 fti) ^ c jo v et^vire 8eo^ fteAi, ito?^Xov ë(ltatrKov ykuirirova o v k o , neXetr€ai. * If it is true that when the pre-Socratics are read with an open mind and sensitive ear that the reader cannot help being struck by the religious note in much of what they say, then Xenophanes is no exception/ In fact he epitomizes the rule. This is one rare example of agreement among contemporary historians of early Greek Philosophy. Xenophanes’ primary contribution was in the area of religious thought. His attack on anthropomorphism, his polemic against Homer’s immoral gods, his refusal to countenance a god that moved hither and thither like a divine butler, were a revolutionary, even if primarily critical, contribution.^ ' From Diels, H. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. (Berlin: Weidemann, 8th edn, 1974), pp. 113 - 138. Following convention, all fragments will be numbered after Diels’ work. “A” will refer to the testimonia, “F ’ to the actual ft^gments. The translation of the fragments will be my own. Where I am dependent upon the work of others (as I will be particularly so of Lesher, 1992) for help in translation and interpretation it will be so noted. Here: “If god had not made honey, men would think figs were sweeter.” ^ I am making allusions to Vlastos’ opening line in his famous ‘Theology and Philosophy in Early Greek Thought” reprinted most recently in Studies in Greek Philosophy (Princeton: University Press, 1995), pp. 3-31. Vlastos made some well supported claims against Jaeger, but his first objection, i.e., that it is wrong to use o f the word “theology” to describe the activity of the Pre-Socratics,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aristotle's Methods
    3 History and Dialectic Metaphysics A 3, 983a24-4b8 Rachel Barney In Metaphysics A 3, Aristotle undertakes to confirm his system of the four causes as a framework for inquiry into first principles, the knowledge of which will constitute wisdom. His strategy will be to survey his philosophical predecessors, in order to establish that none has supplied a cause which cannot be subsumed under his own canonical four. Thus A 3 inaugurates a project not completed until the end of A 6—or, taken more inclusively, A 10, since A 7 summarizes its results, chapters 8 and 9 develop criticisms of some of the views discussed, and chapter 10 reads as a summation of the whole.1 (Much of Metaphysics α also reads, appropriately enough, like a series of reflections on this project: I will note its relevance on occasion below.) Our concern here is with the opening phase of this project. Here Aris- totle discusses the steps taken by the earliest philosophers and their successors towards determining the material cause, which led in turn to recognizing its inadequacy as sole first principle [archê]. I divide the text of A 3, 983a24-4b8 into five moves: (1) the introduction of the project (983a24-3b6); (2) the account of the reasoning of the first philosophers (983b6-20); (3) a discussion of Thales, with an excursus on his putative predecessors among the poets (983b20-4a5); (4) * I would like to thank all the participants in the Symposium Aristotelicum meeting for discussion of this paper, as well as Victor Caston, Nathan Gilbert, Phillip Horky, Brad Inwood, Stephen Menn, and Robin Smith for their comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presocratics in the Doxographical Tradition. Sources, Controversies, and Current Research*
    THE PRESOCRATICS IN THE DOXOGRAPHICAL TRADITION. SOURCES, CONTROVERSIES, AND CURRENT RESEARCH* Han Baltussen Abstract In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo- phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. Introduction In this paper I present a review of recent research on the study of the Presocratics in the doxographical tradition, and how my own work in progress is connected to this area of research. By setting out recent, ongoing and forthcoming research I hope to make a con- tribution to mapping out some important characteristics of the field by way of a critical study of its main sources, since it is quite important that these new insights are more widely known.
    [Show full text]
  • Humor As Philosophical Subversion, Especially in the Skeptics
    Humor as Philosophical Subversion, Especially in the Skeptics Richard Bett 1. Introduction Aristotle is not exactly a comedian. He wrote about comedy in the lost second book of the Poetics, and, as discussed in another paper in this volume, he wrote about wittiness (εὐτραπελία) in his ethical works. But he does not exhibit much of either. What humor there is in Aristotle seems to fall into two main varieties. First, there is word-play that engages the reader’s attention, which can perhaps be seen as an instance of a technique he describes in Rhetoric 3.10, that of saying “smart things and things that create a good impression” (τὰ ἀστεῖα καὶ τὰ εὐδοκιµοῦντα, 1410b6).1 Early in the Nicomachean Ethics, he says that in endeavoring to determine the principles (ἀρχαί) of ethics, we should begin (ἀρκτέον) with things known to us (1095b2-4). A little later, introducing the idea of the function (ἔργον) of a human being, he asks whether we can seriously consider that a human being as such (as opposed to people in various occupations) is ἀργόν (1097b28- 30) – which is intentionally ambiguous between “without function” and “lazy.” In De Caelo, introducing the topic of minimal magnitudes, he says that positing such a minimal magnitude (τοὐλάχιστον) will make the biggest difference (τὰ µέγιστα) in mathematics (271b10-11). And in De Interpretatione, discussing names, he says that “non-human 1 Unless otherwise noted, translations are my own. In the case of Timon, I sometimes draw on translations in Bett 2000 and Bett 2015. In the case of Sextus I generally draw on Bett 1997, Bett 2005, and Bett 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Plutarch and Parmenides HERSHBELL, JACKSON P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1972; 13, 2; Proquest Pg
    Plutarch and Parmenides HERSHBELL, JACKSON P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1972; 13, 2; ProQuest pg. 193 Plutarch and Parmenides Jackson P. Hershbell LTHOUGH PLUTARCH is not a major source for interpretation of A Parmenides' poem, he preserves several fragments: B1.29-30; B8.4; B13, B14 and B15, the last two of which would otherwise be lost.1 He also makes observations on Parmenides' style and thought, and relates one biographical incident.2 Scholars of Plutarch and Parmenides are divided, however, on at least two problems: (1) What was the extent of Plutarch's knowledge ofParmenides, e.g. did he possess a copy of the complete poem, or was he working with second-hand sources such·as compendia 13 (2) How reliable and worth­ while is his interpretation of Parmenides 1 Among those denying Plutarch extensive knowledge of Parmen ides are Fairbanks, Ziegler and Taran. According to Ziegler, Plutarch gave more attention to Parmenides than to Xenophanes, "aber doch nicht eingehender studiert."4 Taran also remarks, "Plutarch's knowledge of Parmenides' text does not appear to have been extensive."5 H. Martin Jr and R. Westman, however, take a positive view. According to Mar­ tin, "Plutarch must have known Parmenides well, though he inter­ preted him anachronistically from a Platonicviewpoint."6 On Martin's latter point there seems to be no scholarly disagreement, though Westman's remark that Plutarch's conception of the relationship be­ tween 'A'\~O€ta; and Lloga in Parmenides' poem "war fur einen, der in 1 The list of quotations in W. C. Helmbold and E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy
    The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Viivi Lähteenoja 19 July 2017 Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Laitos – Institution – Department Faculty Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Viivi Esteri Lähteenoja Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title The Concept of Cosmos in Milesian Philosophy Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Teoreettinen filosofia Työn laji – Arbetets art – Aika – Datum – Month and Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Level year Pro gradu -tutkielma 19 heinäkuuta 2017 83 Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Tämä tutkielma käsittelee kreikan sanan kosmos käyttöä aikaisessa esisokraattisessa filosofiassa, eli miletoslaisten Thaleen, Anaksimandroksen, sekä Anaksimeneen ajattelussa. Tutkielman tavoite on haastaa nykyään yleinen ajatus siitä, että miletoslaiset olisivat olleet puhtaita luonnonfilosofeja, tutkimalla moniselitteisen kosmos-sanan käyttöä. Tämä saavutetaan kokoamalla kaikki näitä ajattelijoita koskevat tekstit, joissa kyseinen sana esiintyy. Ensin tekstit käännetään alkukielestä ja ne analysoidaan filologisesti. Filologisten havaintojen perusteella tekstit asetetaan seuraavaksi niiden filosofiseen kontekstiin, jolloin voidaan osallistua kirjallisuudessa käytävään keskusteluun näiden ajattelijoiden kokonaisfilosofiasta. Lopuksi esitetään vielä excursus liittyen kahteen muuhun keskeiseen esisokraattiseen termiin, phusis ja arkhê. Taustalla tässä työtavassa on ajatus siitä, että esisokraattisen filosofian tutkimuksessa on vuosisatojen
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Classical Studies
    16 Vainglorious Menippus In Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead> aXka. Tcapct vcKpoiq SoyixaTa Lucian, DMort. 6(20).3 ("Pythagoras"). JOELC.RELfflAN Lucian's Dialogues of the Dead are known to the world in two different ways. The most important is through their modem descendants: they are part of Lucian's massive influence on Erasmus, and are frequently imitated in the French and German literature of the 18th and 19th centuries.^ The other is through the study of the literary era that gave them birth: the Greek Second Sophistic, its principles of literary imitation, its allegiance to rhetoric, and its artful irreality. Of these two I am not competent to address the former, except to suggest that the familiarity that Western readers inevitably feel when reading these infernal dialogues does much to obscure what is strange, fantastic, and poetic. But I take issue here with the latter, for the investigation of Lucian's habits of composition and use of motifs, so spectacularly (if sometimes tendentiously) documented by the monographs of Graham Anderson,^ runs the risk of reducing the study of Lucian to a contemplation (and sometimes a rather joyless contemplation) of a second- rate artist's notion of art for art's sake, and would ask us to see as the only content in Lucian the erection of a literary facade and the clever adoption of pretenses and poses. The words of critical appreciation become such things as "graceful," "effortless Atticism," "sophistication," and numerous variations that suggest that we have to do only with shadow and not with * An earlier version of this paper was delivered as a public lecture at the University of Illinois at Urbana in March 1987.
    [Show full text]
  • Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius Tarrant, H a S Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; Proquest Pg
    Platonic interpretation in Aulus Gellius Tarrant, H A S Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1996; 37, 2; ProQuest pg. 173 Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius H. A. S. Tarrant THOUGH IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE that historians of philos­ ophy prefer to deal with material from the philosophers' 1\own works, the works of informed amateurs can often say much about the intellectual world in which they lived, and may supplement comparatively meagre information from the pens of esteemed professionals. The Platonism of the second century is particularly prone to this problem, with a much fuller picture being built with the help of those whom we are inclined to think of only secondarily as philosophers. Plutarch can be fitted into this category in spite of his standing in philosophy. The figures of Theon of Smyrna, Apuleius, and Maximus of Tyre all contribute considerably to the picture of a vital new Pla­ tonism, which none of them has quite seemed to master. Many principal figures wi thin the philosophical schools, such as Taurus, Atticus, and Numenius, are by contrast known only from fragments, and these fragments frequently derive from non-philosophers. Much of what is known of Taurus comes from Aulus Gellius, himself no theorist.! His Noctes Atticae mark the reflections of a fairly conservative, practically minded Roman on his educa­ tional experiences in Greece. The issues about which he writes are sometimes interesting, sometimes less so, sometimes of far­ reaching importance, sometimes of curiosity-value only. All are treated quite briefly, from the simplest matters of etymology and pseudo-etymology to the treatment of the most far­ reaching ethical questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Diogenes Laërtius: a Moderate Skeptic in the History of Philosophy (Book IX)∗
    Philosophy Study, April 2021, Vol. 11, No. 4, 293-302 doi: 10.17265/2159-5313/2021.04.005 D D AV I D PUBLISHING Diogenes Laërtius: A Moderate Skeptic in the History of Philosophy (Book IX)∗ Ramón Román-Alcalá University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain This paper presents the keys and reasons for Diogenes Laërtius’ alleged scepticism, based on an analysis of the general design of his work The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. I believe that it would be manifestly erroneous to seek confirmation of this scepticism solely in Book IX without taking into account the overall structure of the work. A convincing explanation is also provided of one of the most enigmatic and most studied phrases in this work. What did Diogenes mean when he said that Apollonides of Nicaea was ὁ παρ’ ἡμῶν (“one of us”)? Keywords: scepticism, Diogenes Laërtius, sextus, Pyrrho, The Lives of Philosophers The Singular Book IX of “The Lives” Diogenes Laërtius’ work Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers was already relatively well-known in antiquity, due not only to the author’s popularity but also to the singularity of the work, in which he had succeeded in faithfully characterising much of ancient historiography. Moreover, and this is important to highlight in our introduction, taking into account the structure of many of the books and sources mentioned by Diogenes, this work began a new and highly original historiographic genre, which could be called “successions”. Diogenes’ Lives of Philosophers is a singular work. It starts with an introduction focusing on the origins of philosophy (which were undoubtedly Greek), the different classifications of philosophy and philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of Plato's Academy341
    141 SKÉPSIS, ANO VII, Nº 10, 2014. MURDER OR NATURAL CAUSES? THE DEMISE OF PLATO'S ACADEMY341 RAMÓN ROMÁN-ALCALÁ (Universidad de Córdoba). E-mail: [email protected] Introduction. History, operating imperceptibly, tends to provide us with an overview of the rise and fall of philosophical movements, an overarching perspective to which we are blinded when studying the key figures within the limits of their time and space. It is fascinating to observe how philosophical doctrines mutate or change course over time, for reasons whose significance for the evolution of the system as a whole become apparent only when that evolution has ended, but which go unnoticed in the heat and clamour of the dialectical battles that shaped it. The moderate scepticism propounded by Arcesilaus342 and Carneades marked the heyday of the Academy; under their followers, the philosophical stance of the Academy shifted towards a striking dogmatism which eventually prompted its downfall. Little by little, scepticism began to fade, giving way first to a semi-dogmatic outlook and later to the most unyielding dogmatism. This shift in position was the reason for the demise, first of Academic scepticism – which was later to be restored with certain 341T his paper forms part of the Research Project I + D + I FFI2012-32989 on skepticism, funded by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. 342 Arcesilaus is the key figure in the academic skepticism, made an innovative reading of Plato's dialogues, and where others saw a positive and systematic doctrine, the dialectical method looked a skeptical argument (to the impossibilities of clear definitions of concepts), cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius
    SAPERE Scripta Antiquitatis Posterioris ad Ethicam REligionemque pertinentia Schriften der späteren Antike zu ethischen und religiösen Fragen Herausgegeben von Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, Reinhard Feldmeier und Heinz-Günther Nesselrath unter der Mitarbeit von Natalia Pedrique und Andrea Villani Band XXV Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius Introduction, Text, Translation, Commentary and Interpretative Essays by Katja Maria Vogt, Richard Bett, Lorenzo Corti, Tiziano Dorandi, Christiana M. M. Olfert, Elisabeth Scharffenberger, David Sedley, and James Warren edited by Katja Maria Vogt Mohr Siebeck SAPERE is a Project of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities within the programme of the Union of the German Academies funded by the Federal Republic of Germany and the State of Lower Saxony. e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-156430-7 ISBN 978-3-16-153336-5 The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Natio nal- bibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http:// dnb.dnb.de. © 2015 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This ap- plies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and pro- cessing in electronic systems. This book was supervised by Heinz-Günther Nesselrath (representing the SAPERE Editors) and typeset by Magdalena Albrecht, Janjenka Szillat and Andrea Villani at the SAPERE Research Institute, Göttingen. Printed by Gulde Druck in Tübin- gen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. SAPERE Greek and Latin texts of Later Antiquity (1st–4th centuries AD) have for a long time been overshadowed by those dating back to so-called ‘classi- cal’ times.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of Criticism with a New Foreword by Harold Bloom ANATOMY of CRITICISM
    Anatomy of Criticism With a new foreword by Harold Bloom ANATOMY OF CRITICISM Four Essays Anatomy of Criticism FOUR ESSAYS With a Foreword by Harold Bloom NORTHROP FRYE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON AND OXFORD Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY Copyright © 1957, by Princeton University Press All Rights Reserved L.C. Card No. 56-8380 ISBN 0-691-06999-9 (paperback edn.) ISBN 0-691-06004-5 (hardcover edn.) Fifteenth printing, with a new Foreword, 2000 Publication of this book has been aided by a grant from the Council of the Humanities, Princeton University, and the Class of 1932 Lectureship. FIRST PRINCETON PAPERBACK Edition, 1971 Third printing, 1973 Tenth printing, 1990 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) {Permanence of Paper) www.pup.princeton.edu 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 Printed in the United States of America HELENAE UXORI Foreword NORTHROP FRYE IN RETROSPECT The publication of Northrop Frye's Notebooks troubled some of his old admirers, myself included. One unfortunate passage gave us Frye's affirmation that he alone, of all modern critics, possessed genius. I think of Kenneth Burke and of William Empson; were they less gifted than Frye? Or were George Wilson Knight or Ernst Robert Curtius less original and creative than the Canadian master? And yet I share Frye's sympathy for what our current "cultural" polemicists dismiss as the "romantic ideology of genius." In that supposed ideology, there is a transcendental realm, but we are alienated from it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interpretation of Parmenides by The
    THE INTERPRETATION OF PARMENIDES BY THE NEOPLATONIST SIMPLICIUS Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/monist/article/62/1/30/1051769 by guest on 27 September 2021 The doctrines of Parmenides of the one being and of the world of seem­ ing were—as is well known—interpreted in different ways in the course of the history of philosophy, and even in twentieth-century historic-philosophical research, there is no agreement on the meaning of the two parts of the poem. Regarding the one being there are four attempts of explanation to be dis­ tinguished: (1) The being is material; (2) the being is immaterial; (3) it is the esse copulae or must be seen as a modal category; (4) it is the entity of being ("Sein des Seienden"). This latter interpretation, if we can call it an in­ terpretation, is chiefly influenced by Heidegger. The Doxa-part, however, is seen as (1) a more or less critical doxography; (2) a second-best, hypothetic explanation of phenomena which is not truth but verisimilitude; (3) a systematic unit together with the first part, the aXijdtLa. We do not have to discuss the differences between the outlined explanations separately;1 in the following, we shall show that some modern interpretations were already ex­ pressed in a similar way in antiquity. With this, we shall concentrate especially on the Neoplatonist Simplicius who in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics expounds the first part of the Parmenidean poem completely and, in addition, the most important doctrines of the second part. I Aristotle says2 that Melissus and Parmenides had not conceded any reality besides the essence of sensible things, but that they had been the first to recognize that objects of knowledge are ungenerated and unchangeable— the unchangeable is the object of necessary and universal cognition—and that they had applied the characteristics of the ungenerated and unchanging to the sensible.3 Alexander of Aphrodisias4 explains Aristotle's statement in this way: According to Parmenides and Melissus only the sensible is being.
    [Show full text]