{"title":"Heraclitus armeniacus","authors":"Udo Reinhold Jeck","doi":"10.1075/bpjam.00038.jec","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It is a great loss to philosophy that Heraclitus’s writing was lost in antiquity, for the surviving fragments rarely contain more than one sentence. Often, they are succinct but concise statements that contain little text. So, when one succeeds in augmenting important fragments with a few words or illuminating their context, there is progress in Heraclitus research. Sometimes, however, this requires recourse to lineages outside the Greek-Latin tradition. An example of this is provided by fragment 123, which has played an important role since its discovery in the Orationes of Themistius: in the 20th century, Martin Heidegger used it several times for his idiosyncratic interpretation of Heraclitus and the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics. However, he did not consider that an Armenian variant of this fragment had become available at the beginning of the 19th century. This Armenian variant derives from a treatise of Philo of Alexandria which has only been transmitted in Armenian and offers more text than the Greek version. As Diels-Kranz did not include this Armenian source in their edition of The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics, this Armenian variant fell into oblivion and was not known to Heidegger either. Now this article, after introductory remarks on the transmission of Heraclitus’s sayings in Themistius and Philo’s Heraclitea, focuses on the history of the Armenian version of fragment 123 and its primary interpretations. It concludes with a reconstruction of the remarks which Ferdinand Lassalle dedicated to this fragment in both its Greek and Armenian versions in 1858.","PeriodicalId":148050,"journal":{"name":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/bpjam.00038.jec","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

赫拉克利特的著作在古代失传是哲学界的一大损失,因为现存的碎片很少超过一句话。通常,它们是简洁而简洁的语句,包含很少的文本。因此,当一个人成功地用几句话补充了重要的片段或阐明了它们的背景时,赫拉克利特的研究就有了进展。然而,有时这需要求助于希腊-拉丁传统以外的血统。第123段提供了一个这样的例子,自从它在忒米修斯的《讲道》中被发现以来,它一直发挥着重要的作用:在20世纪,马丁·海德格尔(Martin Heidegger)多次使用它来解释赫拉克利特(Heraclitus)和前苏格拉底哲学。然而,他没有考虑到这个残片的亚美尼亚版本在19世纪初就已经出现了。这个亚美尼亚版本源自亚历山大的菲洛的一篇论文,该论文仅以亚美尼亚语传播,并提供了比希腊版本更多的文本。由于Diels-Kranz在他们的《前苏格拉底的片段》中没有包括这个亚美尼亚的来源,这个亚美尼亚的变体被遗忘了,海德格尔也不知道。这篇文章,在介绍了忒米修斯和斐洛的《赫拉克利特》中赫拉克利特言论的传播之后,将重点放在亚美尼亚版本的片段123的历史和它的主要解释上。它总结了费迪南德·拉萨尔在1858年希腊和亚美尼亚版本中对这段片段的评论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Heraclitus armeniacus
Abstract It is a great loss to philosophy that Heraclitus’s writing was lost in antiquity, for the surviving fragments rarely contain more than one sentence. Often, they are succinct but concise statements that contain little text. So, when one succeeds in augmenting important fragments with a few words or illuminating their context, there is progress in Heraclitus research. Sometimes, however, this requires recourse to lineages outside the Greek-Latin tradition. An example of this is provided by fragment 123, which has played an important role since its discovery in the Orationes of Themistius: in the 20th century, Martin Heidegger used it several times for his idiosyncratic interpretation of Heraclitus and the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics. However, he did not consider that an Armenian variant of this fragment had become available at the beginning of the 19th century. This Armenian variant derives from a treatise of Philo of Alexandria which has only been transmitted in Armenian and offers more text than the Greek version. As Diels-Kranz did not include this Armenian source in their edition of The Fragments of the Pre-Socratics, this Armenian variant fell into oblivion and was not known to Heidegger either. Now this article, after introductory remarks on the transmission of Heraclitus’s sayings in Themistius and Philo’s Heraclitea, focuses on the history of the Armenian version of fragment 123 and its primary interpretations. It concludes with a reconstruction of the remarks which Ferdinand Lassalle dedicated to this fragment in both its Greek and Armenian versions in 1858.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Die Chaldäischen Orakel in proklos philosophie Kritik über Leeten (2019): Redepraxis als Lebenspraxis. Die diskursive Kultur der antiken Ethik Kritik über Hengelbrock (2018): Zeit und Freizeit: Seneca, Epistulae morales Proclus armeniacus “Mirum est si intellectus noster omnem scientiam accipiens ex phantasmate”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1