{"title":"中世纪拉丁语对伪亚里士多德“不可分割的线条”的接受:重新评估艺术状态","authors":"Clelia V. Crialesi","doi":"10.21071/refime.v29i2.14564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the first Latin reception of Pseudo-Aristotle’s On Indivisible Lines and its impact on the medieval debate about the continuum. Robert Grosseteste’s and Albert the Great’s references to this pseudo-Aristotelian text show that it could be regarded as a source for where to find information about the indivisibilist tenet, as well as an expansion of Aristotle’s anti-atomistic critiques scattered throughout his authentic works. The use of On Indivisible Lines made by Henry of Harclay and Adam of Wodeham confirms this trend: the reading of this text could be twofold according to the tenet defended. While Henry argues against Pseudo-Aristotle to defend indivisibilism, Adam expands on pseudo-Aristotelian arguments to show the incongruities implied by indivisibilism.","PeriodicalId":52211,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Filosofia Medieval","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Medieval Latin Reception of the Pseudo-Aristotelian 'On Indivisible Lines': Reassessing the State of the Art\",\"authors\":\"Clelia V. Crialesi\",\"doi\":\"10.21071/refime.v29i2.14564\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article deals with the first Latin reception of Pseudo-Aristotle’s On Indivisible Lines and its impact on the medieval debate about the continuum. Robert Grosseteste’s and Albert the Great’s references to this pseudo-Aristotelian text show that it could be regarded as a source for where to find information about the indivisibilist tenet, as well as an expansion of Aristotle’s anti-atomistic critiques scattered throughout his authentic works. The use of On Indivisible Lines made by Henry of Harclay and Adam of Wodeham confirms this trend: the reading of this text could be twofold according to the tenet defended. While Henry argues against Pseudo-Aristotle to defend indivisibilism, Adam expands on pseudo-Aristotelian arguments to show the incongruities implied by indivisibilism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Espanola de Filosofia Medieval\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Espanola de Filosofia Medieval\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21071/refime.v29i2.14564\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Filosofia Medieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21071/refime.v29i2.14564","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本文论述了伪亚里士多德的《不可分割的线》在拉丁语中的首次接受及其对中世纪关于连续体的争论的影响。Robert Grosseteste和Albert the Great对这篇伪亚里士多德文本的引用表明,它可以被视为一个来源,可以在哪里找到关于不可分割原则的信息,也可以扩展亚里士多德散布在其真迹中的反原子主义批评。Harclay的Henry和Wodeham的Adam对《不可分割的线条》的使用证实了这一趋势:根据所捍卫的原则,对本文本的解读可能是双重的。当亨利反对伪亚里士多德来捍卫不可分割性时,亚当扩展了伪亚里士多德的论点来展示不可分割主义所隐含的不协调性。
The Medieval Latin Reception of the Pseudo-Aristotelian 'On Indivisible Lines': Reassessing the State of the Art
This article deals with the first Latin reception of Pseudo-Aristotle’s On Indivisible Lines and its impact on the medieval debate about the continuum. Robert Grosseteste’s and Albert the Great’s references to this pseudo-Aristotelian text show that it could be regarded as a source for where to find information about the indivisibilist tenet, as well as an expansion of Aristotle’s anti-atomistic critiques scattered throughout his authentic works. The use of On Indivisible Lines made by Henry of Harclay and Adam of Wodeham confirms this trend: the reading of this text could be twofold according to the tenet defended. While Henry argues against Pseudo-Aristotle to defend indivisibilism, Adam expands on pseudo-Aristotelian arguments to show the incongruities implied by indivisibilism.