Journal articles on the topic 'Anaximène'

In this paper we try to show that, according to Aristotle, Anaximandar, like Thales, Anaximenes and Heraclitus, is a monist in respect of the type of ultimate cause of composition and change in the phenomenal world, since he is a materialist, but not a material monist. According to Aristotle?s understanding, his ultimate material cause, which he, according to some testimonies, called [??] ???????, is a ?mixture? and not a homogeneous fundamental substance. The paper will also try to show that, according to Aristotle, the theory of the ultimate material cause is strictly related to the theory of change. Thales, Anaximens and Heraclitus explain cosmogony and changes in the phenomenal world by condensation and rarefaction of the ultimate homogeneous material cause, while Anaksimandar explains them by separating (and by merging) the heterogeneous parts of that cause.

Het 'fragment' van Anaximenes is een pseudo-citaat. We hebben hier zoals zo vaak te maken met een geval van actualisering door middel van (her)interpretatie. Het expliciete argument dat gebaseerd is op de analogie van de menselijke ziel en het leidend beginsel van de kosmos kan niet vroeg zijn, maar wijst op een Stoische achtergrond, zoals ook het gebruik van de term pneuma als equivalent voor de vroege term aër (lucht). De weerlegging van de aan Anaximenes toegeschreven these gebruikt een op de Stoische theorie toegesneden adaptatie van een argument van Aristoteles.

Comparison of the accounts of arrangement (taxis) in Aristotle's Rhetoric and Anaximenes' Rhetoric to Alexander gives further support to belief in a common urtext of the two treatises. It also aids in the interpretation of several hitherto obscure passages in both texts and reveals differences in the approaches used by the philosopher and rhetorician.

The study focuses on the question, how a seamount in the oligotrophic eastern Mediterranean affects the zooplankton community, as compared to the open water. Zooplankton samples were taken with 333 µm nets at two sites, the Rhodes Basin and the Anaximenes Mountain, in December 2006. The samples were sieved into size fractions, and the composition, biomass, abundance and stable isotope signatures were analysed. In general, biomass and abundance of zooplankton were low, reflecting the oligotrophic character of the eastern Mediterranean, but zooplankton standing stocks were higher at the Rhodes Basin than at the Anaximenes Mountain. Stable isotope signatures showed, at a generally low level, enrichment in zooplankton taxa along the food chain within the different pelagic zones and from the surface to the deep-sea, but no significant differences between Rhodes Basin and the seamount were evident in the food web structure. The zooplankton community in the Anaximenes Mountain region in the northern Levantine Basin seems not to be influenced by a local seamount effect, despite the difference in standing stocks between the seamount and the Rhodes Basin. This seems to be driven by larger-scale upwelling and downwelling structures of cyclones and anticyclones, dominating the circulation in the area.

AbstractAnaximenes is usually considered to be a material monist recognizing transparent atmospheric air as a principle (ἀρχή). In the cosmogonic explanation of the origin of the earth and the heavenly bodies, the Greek term ἀήρ turns out to mean rather ‘opaque damp mist’. However, Not only does it accord with archaic usage, but also with how it was used in his mentor, Anaximander. Yet, in cosmology ἀήρ means ‘air’ serving as stuff on which the earth and the heavenly bodies float. Hence, in keeping with contemporary usage, Anaximenes recognised two kinds of ἀήρ, distinguishing them functionally. Whereas mist is conceived of as a generating substance, air functions only as carrying stuff.

Forensic oratory must of necessity deal with the subject of law, and rhetoric which aspires to be of use in the courts must offer the potential litigant or logographer guidance on the way to deal with questions of law. Accordingly, Aristotle devotes some space to this issue in the Rhetoric. Although the morality of Aristotle's advice has been debated, little attention has been paid to the more basic question of the soundness of his advice. The aim of this paper is to examine Aristotle's presentation of the rhetoric of law in the Rhetoric in comparison with actual practice in surviving forensic speeches. The fourth century Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, commonly ascribed to Anaximenes of Lampsakos, also offers advice on the manipulation of argument from law, and the general similarity of that advice to Aristotle's suggests either direct influence or a common source. Anaximenes' discussion of the use of law in forensic oratory is both more brief and less systematic, and will be given more cursory treatment.

The author sketches the most important aspects of Heraclitean theory of fire as the ‘principle’, ‘beginning’ or ‘origin’ (arché) of existing things. The presentation puts his concept of arché in the background of Heraclitean famous aphoristic dicta (‘everything flows’ – panta rhei, among others) and his theory of universal logos. Although the philosophy of Heraclitus is not very distinct from other theories by archaic philosophers of nature (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Thales, Parmenides, Empedocles), its specificity makes Heraclitus one of the most influential and inspiring figures of Ancient world.

Two new species of Echinoderes from the Eratosthenes Seamount and a deep-sea station near the Sedlo Seamount are described. Echinoderes multiporus sp. nov. from the Eratosthenes Seamount is characterized by a combination of the presence of middorsal acicular spines on segments 4, 6, and 8, ventrolateral tubes on segment 2, lateroventral tubes on segment 5, lateroventral acicular spines on segments 6–9, midlateral tubes on segment 10, and type-2 glandular cell outlets in subdorsal position on segment 2 and in laterodorsal position on segments 4–9. Echinoderes unispinosus sp. nov. from the deep-sea station differs from its congeners by the combination of middorsal acicular spine on segment 4, lateroventral acicular spines on segments 6 and 7, type-2 glandular cell outlets present in midlateral position on segment 1, in subdorsal, laterodorsal, sublateral, and ventrolateral position on segment 2, in lateral accessory position on segment 5, and in sublateral position on segment 8, and densely aligned pectinate fringe teeth of the primary pectinate fringes similar in width on segments 1–10. In addition, the morphological data of two undescribed species from the Anaximenes Seamount and a deep-sea station near the Sedlo Seamount are given. An undescribed species from the Anaximenes Seamount is morphologically similar to Echinoderes unispinosus sp. nov., but differs in the smaller trunk length, the presence of broader pectinate fringe teeth of the primary pectinate fringe on segment 1, and the absence of ventromedial sensory spots on segment 8. Another undescribed species from the deep-sea station differs from its congeners in the pattern of spines, tubes, and type-2 glandular cell outlets and length of middorsal and lateral terminal spines. New names are not given to both undescribed species in this study, because only one specimen is available for each species, and both of the specimens were damaged during the preparation.

The article offers a reconstruction of the part of Heraclitus' teaching about the origin of the world, which contains information about the structure of this very origin. The philosopher's idea of this structure is clarified, using the results of the comparative analysis of the original world in Thales and Anaximenes. Thus, the original for Heraclitus is the fiery element, eternal, indestructible and consisting of the smallest parts. The structure of "fire" is composed of a plurality of certain raspings. As a result of the ongoing process of "melting", from the "particles" of matter, there appear other primary elements, then planets and stars, the cosmos itself. This is how Heraclitus conceived both the eternal cycle of primary elements, and the processes of cosmogony.

The strong point of D. Mirhady's work (hereafter ‘M.’) lies in his interpretation of the rhetorical handbooks (technai). I agree in general with Part III, though admitting my lack of specialist knowledge in this field. To a large extent Part III confirms my observations on procedural law published in 1977 (Beweisführung, quoted supra n. 4). I approve of the opinion that, despite the use of written rather than oral testimony, the formulas, by which the evidence was used, did not change (M. after n. 62, see my recent article in: Die athenische Demokratie, ed. W. Eder [Stuttgart 1995], p. 329 f.). M. states an appealing hypothesis, that the introduction of written testimony did not so much change the procedure as provide the cause for a new handbook on rhetoric to be written, which he suggests was the common precursor to Aristotle and Anaximenes.

Kinorhynchs rarely show a wide distribution pattern, due to their putatively low dispersal capabilities and/or limited sampling efforts. In this study, a new kinorhynch species is described,Echinoderespterussp. n., which shows a geographically and bathymetrically wide distribution, occurring on the Karasik Seamount and off the Svalbard Islands (Arctic Ocean), on the Sedlo Seamount (northeast Atlantic Ocean), and on the deep-sea floor off Crete and on the Anaximenes Seamount (Mediterranean Sea), at a depth range of 675–4,403 m. The new species is characterized by a combination of middorsal acicular spines on segments 4–8, laterodorsal tubes on segment 10, lateroventral tubes on segment 5, lateroventral acicular spines on segments 6–9, tufts of long hairs rising from slits in a laterodorsal position on segment 9, truncated tergal extensions on segment 11, and the absence of any type-2 gland cell outlet. The specimens belonging to the populations from the Arctic Ocean, the Sedlo Seamount, and the Mediterranean Sea show morphological variation in the thickness and length of the spines as well as in the presence/absence of ventromedial sensory spots on segment 7. The different populations are regarded as belonging to a single species because of their overlapping variable characters.

One of the most common problems encountered in present-day research into ancient natural philosophy is the question of when the term kosmos (κόσμος) began to be used not only for order, but also for the meaning of world order. This article attempts to argue that this new interpretation of kosmos is connected with Socratic thought and asserts that the Socratic anthropological turn can only be meaningfully discussed due to changes in the field of natural philosophy. This anthropological turn is best expressed by Roman orator and philosopher Cicero in his well-known work Tusculan Disputations. The article attempts to offer an interpretation based on the belief that the collocation world order presumes a philosophical turn towards a focus on humans and their internal world experiences. For the author’s interpretation, the specific concept of koinonia (κοινωνία) as it is found first in Empedocles’ fragments and later in Plato’s philosophy is important. The article consists of three parts: the first part deals with several traditional meanings of kosmos (Homer, Hesiod, Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Pythagoreans etc.), the second part with meanings that Socratic philosophy (especially Plato, partly Xenophon) assigns to the term, and the final part attempts to argue that it is explicitly Plato who first began using kosmos with the meaning of world or world order.

I begin with a warm welcome for Evangelos Alexiou's Greek Rhetoric of the 4th Century bc, a ‘revised and slightly abbreviated’ version of the modern Greek edition published in 2016 (ix). Though the volume's title points to a primary focus on the fourth century, sufficient attention is given to the late fifth and early third centuries to provide context. As ‘rhetoric’ in the title indicates, the book's scope is not limited to oratory: Chapter 1 outlines the development of a rhetorical culture; Chapter 2 introduces theoretical debates about rhetoric (Plato, Isocrates, Alcidamas); and Chapter 3 deals with rhetorical handbooks (Anaximenes, Aristotle, and the theoretical precepts embedded in Isocrates). Oratory comes to the fore in Chapter 4, which introduces the ‘canon’ of ten Attic orators: in keeping with the fourth-century focus, Antiphon, Andocides, and Lysias receive no more than sporadic attention; conversely, extra-canonical fourth-century orators (Apollodorus, the author of Against Neaera, Hegesippus, and Demades) receive limited coverage. The remaining chapters deal with the seven major canonical orators: Isocrates, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Isaeus, Lycurgus, Hyperides, and Dinarchus. Each chapter follows the same basic pattern: life, work, speeches, style, transmission of text and reception. Isocrates and Demosthenes have additional sections on research trends and on, respectively, Isocratean ideology and issues of authenticity in the Demosthenic corpus. In the case of Isaeus, there is a brief discussion of contract oratory; Lycurgus is introduced as ‘the relentless prosecutor’. Generous extracts from primary sources are provided, in Greek and in English translation; small-type sections signal a level of detail that some readers may wish to pass over. The footnotes provide extensive references to older as well as more recent scholarship. The thirty-page bibliography is organized by chapter (a helpful arrangement in a book of this kind, despite the resulting repetition); the footnotes supply some additional references. Bibliographical supplements to the original edition have been supplied ‘only in isolated cases’ (ix). In short, this volume is a thorough, well-conceived, and organized synthesis that will be recognized, without doubt, as a landmark contribution. There are, inevitably, potential points of contention. The volume's subtitle, ‘the elixir of democracy and individuality’, ties rhetoric more closely to democracy and to Athens than is warranted: the precarious balancing act which acknowledges that rhetoric ‘has never been divorced from human activity’ while insisting that ‘its vital political space was the democracy of city-states’ (ix–x) seems to me untenable. Alexiou acknowledges that ‘the gift of speaking well, natural eloquence, was considered a virtue already by Homer's era’ (ix), and that ‘the natural gift of speaking well was considered a virtue’ (1). But the repeated insistence on natural eloquence is perplexing. Phoenix, in the embassy scene in Iliad 9, makes it clear that his remit included the teaching of eloquence (Il. 9.442, διδασκέμεναι): Alexiou only quotes the following line, which he mistakenly assigns to Book 10. (The only other typo that I noticed was ‘Aritsotle’ [97]. I, too, have a tendency to mistype the Stagirite's name, though my own automatic transposition is, alas, embarrassingly scatological.) Alexiou provides examples of later Greek assessments of fourth-century orators, including (for example) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Hermogenes, and the author of On Sublimity (the reluctance to commit to the ‘pseudo’ prefix is my, not Alexiou's, reservation). He observes cryptically that ‘we are aware of Didymus’ commentary’ (245); but the extensive late ancient scholia, which contain material from Menander's Demosthenic commentaries, disappointingly evoke no sign of awareness.

The interest in Presocratic philosophy, and the scholarly output on it, have been rising again in the last few years. I start this review with a sample of recent publications in the area. It is easy to expect that Daniel Graham's collection of The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy, in two volumes, will become a popular tool for the study of Presocratic philosophy (for some qualifications on this expectation see below). The sourcebook aims to present ‘the complete fragments and a generous selection of testimonies’ for the major early Greek philosophers. English translations (all by Graham himself) are set opposite to Greek and Latin texts (with slim textual notes identifying substantive textual variants), with succinct introductions for each philosopher, and brief commentaries and basic bibliographies following the texts. The Diels-Kranz (hereafter DK) collection is the starting point for this sourcebook, but Graham is quite selective in his shortlist of those who deserve a place in his sourcebook: out of ninety DK sections, he includes only nineteen philosophers (Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Diogenes of Apollonia, Melissus, Philolaus, Leucippus, Democritus, Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiphon, Prodicus, and Pythagoras, the last being relegated to an appendix) and two anonymous texts, the Anonymus Iamblichi and the Dissoi Logoi. Although the sourcebook includes some fragments and testimonies that did not appear in DK (e.g. the Strasbourg papyrus for Empedocles), and only a selection of the testimonies included there, the major difference in terms of the material included for the selected philosophers is the order in which fragments and testimonies are presented. The fragments are incorporated within the context of the broader testimonies containing them (and signalled in bold), rather than listed separately, as in DK; the numbering of fragments and testimonies does not correspond to DK, but the DK numbers are given in addition, and volume 2 includes a list of concordances (besides an index of sources, an index of other passages quoted by Graham in his end-of-chapter commentaries, and a short general index of names and topics). Graham's choice is definitely a healthy step forward from DK's largely artificial strategy of separating fragments and testimonies into two different sections; one might wonder whether the decision to signal in bold words, phrases, sentences, and sections that supposedly count as original fragments within the broader context in which they occur is still too heavily indebted to the DK model. For each author the texts are organized in four main sections: life, works, philosophy, and reception, with the philosophy section typically structured into thematic subsections. Of course the strengths and shortcomings of a monumental work such as Graham's can be fully appreciated only over time, once you use it repeatedly in your teaching and research. I have mentioned Graham's approach to the distinction between fragments and testimonies: some sustained methodological discussion, and explanation of the criteria guiding the distinction, would have been welcome. Unavoidably some readers will find Graham's shortlist of philosophers and selection of texts unsatisfactory and too narrow: some qualms about notable exclusions – such as Solon, Alcmaeon, Archytas, Pherecydes, the Orphics, and the Derveni author – have already been voiced (for example, by Jason Rheins in his review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews). As far as I could see, the translations are reliable, and the short introductions, commentaries, and bibliographies provide just enough information for readers to contextualize the authors and texts within the philosophical tradition (less so within the broader archaic Greek cultural and literary tradition), and appreciate some of the key exegetical and philosophical issues that they raise. Just enough, and this brings me to what I find to be the less convincing aspect of such an enterprise as Graham's. His collection will certainly be of some use as an accessible reference tool for advanced students and researchers, but its selectivity will prevent it from becoming a research tool in its own right, and standard editions of individual Presocratics will remain the first port of call (for example, the second edition of Coxon's The Fragments of Parmenides, reviewed below). At the same time, the breadth of the material that it contains, coupled with the relative thinness of the apparatus of introductions and commentaries, does not make The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy the kind of introductory sourcebook that could be used on its own in an introductory undergraduate course on ancient philosophy, or on the Presocratics. It is difficult to imagine lecturers of such courses prescribing to their students more than a small fraction of the material offered by Graham; and those students will still need to use standard introductions to Presocratic philosophy such as Kirk–Raven–Schofield, Barnes, McKirahan, or Warren to make real sense of the evidence presented by Graham, placing it within a unified narrative about the nature and development of early Greek philosophy. From this point of view, Graham's collection risks falling into no man's land from the point of view of its readership: it is neither a ground-breaking, research-shaping tool such as, for example, Long and Sedley's collection on The Hellenistic Philosophers has been for three decades now, nor an introductory textbook easily accessible (for both sheer bulk and price) to undergraduate students. That said, Graham's work still deserves a place in all university libraries and on the shelves of ancient philosophy scholars.

AbstractThis paper provides a complete collection of the papyrological sources concerning the Milesians. Apart from some texts which do not appear in the Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF), this collection also takes into account some Herculanean testimonia to Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes which have been forgotten in both the old and most recent editions of these pre-Socratic philosophers. An appendix deals with the alleged references to the Milesians in Book 11 of Epicurus’ On Nature.

Herodotus was not the first to write prose. When his History appeared, probably in the 430s BCE, the scientists of Ionia (like the author of Airs, Waters, Places) had been working for more than a generation. Anaximander and Anaximenes had produced works on the nature of the world as early as the middle of the sixth century, and Hecataeus had already produced his Periodos Gês, ‘Trip around the World’, which surveyed the nations of the Mediterranean. Heraclitus had deposited his paradoxical provocations in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. Yet, both for the Greeks and for us, what Herodotus achieved demands to be seen as a radical departure. For the first time, the stirring and dramatic events of a nation at war are not merely recorded but explored and discussed at epic length in prose. It is extremely difficult after the long history of History to appreciate just how remarkable this innovative and foundational act is.