Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T14:37:20.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentators and Doxographers on Xenophanes’ Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2023

Mathilde Brémond
Mathilde Brémond*
Affiliation:
PHIER, Université Clermont Auvergne
*
E-mail: bremondmathilde@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I examine the various interpretations of Xenophanes’ theology in antiquity. After distinguishing between the traditions of commentaries and of doxographies, I focus on two unexpected testimonies: Pseudo-Aristotle in On Melissus, Xenophanes and Gorgias and Simplicius. Both attribute to Xenophanes, unlike other authors, the thesis that the god is neither limited nor unlimited and neither moved nor unmoved. I argue that this reading originates from Theophrastus, more specifically from a commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, but that Pseudo-Aristotle is responsible for misinterpreting this claim and adding arguments to justify it. I finally highlight the many sources of Simplicius, who uses not only Theophrastus’ commentary on the Physics and Pseudo-Aristotle, but also another doxographical work, possibly the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.

Keywords

XenophanestheologydoxographySimpliciusPseudo-Aristotle
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 142 , November 2022 , pp. 179 - 203
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Babut, D. (1974) ‘Sur la “théologie” de Xénophane’, RPhilos 164, 401–40Google Scholar
Baltussen, H. (2008) Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator (London)Google Scholar
Barnes, J. (1982) The Presocratic Philosophers (2nd edition) (London)Google Scholar
Brémond, M. (2015) ‘Melissus’ so-called refutation of mixture’, Rhizomata 3.2, 143–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brémond, M. (2017) Lectures de Mélissos (Berlin)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brémond, M. (2019) ‘Mélissos, Gorgias et Platon dans la première hypothèse du Parménide ’, RPhA 37.1, 61–99 Google Scholar
Brémond, M. (2020) ‘How did Xenophanes become an Eleatic philosopher?’, Elenchos 41.1, 1–26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brémond, M. (forthcoming) ‘What does Gorgias criticize in On Not-Being?’, in Campolina, M. and Giombini, S. (eds), Eleatic Ontology: Origin and Reception 1b (Coimbra)Google Scholar
Diels, H. (1879) Doxographi Graeci (Berlin)Google Scholar
Diels, H. (1882) Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores commentaria (Berlin)Google Scholar
Diels, H. (1900) Aristotelis qui fertur de Melisso Xenophane Gorgia libellus (Berlin)Google Scholar
Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (1951–1952) Die Fragmente Der Vorsokratiker (6th edition) (Berlin)Google Scholar
Finkelberg, A. (1990) ‘Studies in Xenophanes’, HSPh 93, 103–67Google Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W. (1992) Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence 1 (Leiden and New York)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemelli Marciano, M.L. (2005) ‘Xenophanes: Antike Interpretation und Kultureller Kontext’, in Rechenauer, G. (ed.), Frühgriechisches Denken (Göttingen) 118–34Google Scholar
Gigon, O. (1945) Der Ursprung Der Griechischen Philosophie: Von Hesiod Bis Parmenides (Basel)Google Scholar
Golitsis, P. (2008 ) Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d’Aristote (Berlin and New York)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golitsis, P. (2014) ‘La Recensio altera du commentaire d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise à la Métaphysique d’Aristote et le témoignage des manuscrits byzantins Laurentianus Plut. 87,12 et Ambrosianus F 113 Sup.’, in Signes Codoñer, J. and Pérez Martin, I. (eds), Textual Transmission in Byzantium: Between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung (Turnhout) 199–230 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottschalk, H.B. (1967) Review of Die Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos by P. Steinmetz, Gnomon 39.1, 17–26 Google Scholar
Guthrie, W.K.C. (1962) A History of Greek Philosophy 1 (Cambridge)Google Scholar
Hayduck, M. (1891) Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Metaphysica commentaria (Berlin)Google Scholar
Jaeger, W. (1957) Aristotelis Metaphysica (Oxford)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journée, G. (2018) ‘Aétius et le problème des sources de Théodoret: à propos de GAC 4.12’, in Mansfeld, J. and Runia, D.T. (eds), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer 4 (Leiden) 196–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurfess, C. (2021) ‘Eleatic “Archai” in Aristotle: A Dependence on Theophrastus’ Natural History?’, in Harry, C.C. and Habash, J. (eds), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Presocratic Natural Philosophy in Later Classical Thought (Leiden and Boston MA) 261–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1987) ‘Theophrastus and the Xenophanes doxography’, Mnemosyne 40.3–4, 286–312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1988a) ‘Compatible alternatives: Middle Platonist theology and the Xenophanes reception’, in van den Broek, R., Baarda, T. and Mansfeld, J. (eds), Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World (Leiden and New York) 92–117 Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1988b) ‘ De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia. Pyrrhonizing aristotelianism’, RhM 131.3–4, 239–76Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1989) ‘Gibt Es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. Op. bei Cicero?’, in Fortenbaugh, W. and Steinmetz, P. (eds), Cicero’s Knowledge of the Peripatos (New Brunswick and London) 133–58Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. (1992) Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy (Leiden)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDiarmid, J.B. (1953) ‘Theophrastus on the Presocratic causes’, HSPh 61, 85–156 Google Scholar
McKirahan, R.D. (2010) Philosophy before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary (2nd edition) (Indianapolis)Google Scholar
Moraux, P. (1984) Der Aristotelismus Bei Den Griechen: Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias 2 (Berlin and New York)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, J. (1998) ‘Xenophanes’ Ouranian god in the fourth century’, OSAPh 16, 1–32 Google Scholar
Reinhardt, K. (1916) Parmenides und die Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie (Bonn)Google Scholar
Schäfer, C. (1996) Xenophanes von Kolophon: Ein Vorsokratiker Zwischen Mythos und Philosophie (Stuttgart and Leipzig)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schirren, T. (2013) ‘Xenophanes’, in Flashar, H., Bremer, D. and Rechenauer, G. (eds), Die Philosophie Der Antike (Basel) 339–74Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. (1964) Die Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos (Bad Homburg, Berlin and Zürich)Google Scholar
Steinmetz, P. (1966) ‘Xenophanesstudien’, RhM 109.1, 13–73 Google Scholar
Stokes, M.C. (1971) One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy (Cambridge MA)Google Scholar
Strobel, B. and Wöhrle, G. (2018) Xenophanes von Kolophon (Berlin)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Untersteiner, M. (1956) Senofane. Testimonianze e Frammenti (Florence)Google Scholar
Wiesner, J. (1974) Ps.-Aristoteles, MXG: Der Historische Wert des Xenophanesreferats (Amsterdam)Google Scholar