Cleomedes

Recorrido crítico por la figura y la obra de Piteas de Marsella, primer explorador del NO de Europa, que vivió en el s. IV a.C. Astrónomo y geógrafo, compuso una obra "Sobre el Océano", conservada de modo muy fragmentario, en la que estudiaba el Océano desde un punto de vista físico y astronómico. Cleómedes lo califica como "filósofo", probablemente debido a su relación con Eudoxo de Cnido. En la Antigüedad fue reconocido como astrónomo, matemático y explorador entre los hombres de ciencia (Eratóstenes, Hiparco, Posidonio, Ptolomeo), con la excepción del geógrafo Estrabón (que paradójicamente representa nuestra fuente de información más amplia), quien lo critica con fuerza. Por lo demás, la imagen que se ha transmitido de Piteas a través de Antonio Diógenes (Maravillas increíbles de más allá de Tule), Hecateo de Abdera, las Argonáuticas órficas y buena parte de la literatura fantástica de la Antigüedad es una imagen muy diferente a aquella de un hombre de ciencia. La influencia de Piteas en la tradición posterior se debe sobre todo al motivo mítico de la "ultima Tule" como un nuevo lugar utópico donde emplazar especulaciones y fantasías de todo tipo. Esquema del capítulo: Bibliografía general: Testimonios y fragmentos: Ediciones antiguas. Ediciones de referencia. Traducciones. Estudios generales. Datación. Obra: Título. Importancia filosófica. Influencia.

The present study traces the discourses about the antipodes from Greek and Roman writings to recent Pacific Island literature and into the twenty-first century.  My focus on “discourses” draws on Michel Foucault who, we remember, describes a “discursive formation” as “a space of multiple dissensions; a set of different oppositions whose levels and roles must be described.” He emphasizes that a study of discourse will be of “transformations” in the sense that the aim is “to describe, for each discursive practice, its rules of accumulation, exclusion, reactivation, its own forms of derivation, and its specific modes of connexion over various successions.”  This investigation of antipodean discourse embraces the ambiguity of the word antipodes in the sense of the initial contingency about where exactly the other side of the world is and the relatively undetermined topography of the antipodes. It also takes up other “dissensions” and “oppositions.” The antipodes are at times singular, and they are multiple in the Greek sense of the plural “opposite feet.” They sometimes exist in the northern hemisphere though they come to be associated with the Southeast. They are one or more islands (part of the sea), they are a continent and islands (they dominate the sea), or they are principally the sea itself. They are our opposites, and yet beyond the question of who and where “we” are, the relationships one might have with the antipodes are not so clearly oppositional. One can travel to them, one can be near them, one can remain in them, and one can leave from them. One can imaginatively reach out to them and physically reach them along a number of very different routes, and the antipodes can also reach out to and reach “us.” They correspond to us, but they also correspond with us. It is this rich texture of the antipodes that I explore—their quizzical as well as their comical appearances—in a way that might come near them even if they are evanescent and disorienting. At times their opposite feet will touch the bottoms of our feet in a bodily and uncanny fashion. At other times peoples of the antipodes might walk upright in our midst so that it seems to be we who are on uncertain footing. At still other times we will sail within antipodean waters and set up house on an antipodean beach to look out at other places across the earth.

The Institut für Griechische und Lateinische Philologie (University of Hamburg) is pleased to invite you to the workshop:

Nikephoros Blemmydes in the Palaeologan Age: Manuscripts, Reception, Scientific Milieu

A workshop at the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (Room 0001, Warburgstraße 26, 20354 Hamburg)

Organised by Stefano Valente and Christian Brockmann.

Monday · October 19th · 2015

The theologian and philosopher Nikephoros Blemmydes (1197 – after 1269) was already considered an authority in his lifetime. Among others, his works include theological and doctrinal treatises, a compendium of Aristotelian philosophy – i.e. logic, physics, astronomy and meteorology – as well as an important autobiography. Despite the cultural relevance of Nikephoros Blemmydes during the Palaeologan age, many of his works are still not properly edited. As a consequence, they have seldom been studied – with some important exceptions. Starting from the end of the 13th century, and foremost during the 14th century, some of his treatises became established as reference works and enjoyed widespread circulation. The numerous manuscripts remaining today attest to a rich tradition, ranging from the 13th to the 19th century, and it still deserves of thorough investigation, both from a textual and from a manuscriptological point of view. Moreover, during the Palaeologan age, rich citations or entire chapters from Blemmydean works were also incorporated into newly produced encyclopedias, such as the one composed by Joseph Rhakendytes. Thus, the latter’s work is one of the first examples of the early reception of Blemmydes.

This workshop aims to present some aspects of current research concerning Blemmydes in the Palaeologan age, and, more generally, the scientific context in which his works started to circulate. The workshop will consist of lectures by international experts on Byzantine palaeography and literature. Some papers will deal with important manuscripts of Blemmydes’ works preserved in European libraries, as well as with manuscripts of scientific works dating from the 13th and 14th century, in order to present the background and the contemporary studies on astronomy, an important matter in Blemmydes scientific works. The reception of Blemmydes’ works and their relationship with the poorly studied Encyclopedia by Rhakendytes will also be a particular focus.

These different approaches are expected to result in some first inputs into a modern and comprehensive evaluation of the role Blemmydes played during the last centuries of the Byzantine empire.

I analyze the polemically charged exposition of classical cosmologies by Gregory of Nyssa in Against Eunomius II, 72–76, and identify probable sources for this passage and the targets of Gregory’s criticism of classical cosmologies, manifested in this passage. In Against Eunomius II, 73–75, Gregory presents the Aristotelian cosmology and polemicizes with it. My analysis shows three avenues of Gregory’s criticism of the Aristotelian cosmology, which are manifested in this passage. As my analysis of Against Eunomius II, 76 shows, in this passage, Gregory summarizes and criticizes the Stoic natural-philosophical and cosmological doctrine that there is the limitless void beyond the limits of the cosmos, in which cosmos moves (probably by expanding and contracting). I identify two points in Gregory’s criticism of this doctrine. Finally, I suggest that the immediate Gregory’s source regarding this Stoic doctrine was a treatise of Cleomedes.

I analyze the polemically charged exposition of classical cosmologies by Gregory of Nyssa in Against Eunomius II, 72–76, and identify probable sources for this passage and the targets of Gregory’s criticism of classical cosmologies, manifested in this passage. In Against Eunomius II, 73–75, Gregory presents the Aristotelian cosmology and polemicizes with it. My analysis shows three avenues of Gregory’s criticism of the Aristotelian cosmology, which are manifested in this passage. As my analysis of Against Eunomius II, 76 shows, in this passage, Gregory summarizes and criticizes the Stoic natural-philosophical and cosmological doctrine that there is the limitless void beyond the limits of the cosmos, in which cosmos moves (probably by expanding and contracting). I identify two points in Gregory’s criticism of this doctrine. Finally, I suggest that the immediate Gregory’s source regarding this Stoic doctrine was a treatise of Cleomedes.

TABLE DES MATIÈRES : Introduction générale (1-50) : A. Auteur, B. Provenance géographique, C. Datation, D. Personnalité intellectuelle, E. Cléomède et la physique stoïcienne, F. Genre littéraire de l’ouvrage, G. Le texte, H. La traduction, I. Le commentaire, J. Analyse sommaire du contenu de l’ouvrage. Notes critiques (51-75). Bibliographie générale (77-84). Traduction (85-175). Commentaire (177-226). Appendice sur la langue et le style de Cléomède (227-237). Schémas (239-252). Indices (253-272).