Heraclitus On the Sun (original) (raw)
Related papers
The concept of the sun as ἡγεμονικόν in the stoa and in Manilius’ astronomica
Revista Archai, 2017
A navegação consulta e descarregamento dos títulos inseridos nas Bibliotecas Digitais UC Digitalis, UC Pombalina e UC Impactum, pressupõem a aceitação plena e sem reservas dos Termos e Condições de Uso destas Bibliotecas Digitais, disponíveis em https://digitalis.uc.pt/pt-pt/termos. Conforme exposto nos referidos Termos e Condições de Uso, o descarregamento de títulos de acesso restrito requer uma licença válida de autorização devendo o utilizador aceder ao(s) documento(s) a partir de um endereço de IP da instituição detentora da supramencionada licença. Ao utilizador é apenas permitido o descarregamento para uso pessoal, pelo que o emprego do(s) título(s) descarregado(s) para outro fim, designadamente comercial, carece de autorização do respetivo autor ou editor da obra. Na medida em que todas as obras da UC Digitalis se encontram protegidas pelo Código do Direito de Autor e Direitos Conexos e demais legislação aplicável, toda a cópia, parcial ou total, deste documento, nos casos em que é legalmente admitida, deverá conter ou fazer-se acompanhar por este aviso. The concept of the sun as in the stoa and in Manilius' astronomica
Aristotle's Threefold Conception of Fire in Meteor. I-III
Physis (2023) 63.1, pp. 1-26.
The present paper deals with the threefold conception of fire in Aristotle’s Meteorologica I-III. At the beginning of the work, fire is described as (a) an element, while in the rest of the treatise it is presented either as (b) a smoky exhalation or as (c) an excess of hot and a sort of boiling. The aim of this paper is to show that those different characterisations of fire are by no means contradictory, and that they peacefully coexist within the same cosmological and meteorological framework. What makes this possible is that their physical status does not overlap: (c) is a process rather than a body, whereas (a) and (b) are both bodies, but the former is only to be found potentially in the cosmos, the latter, actually. In doing so, the general and fundamental issue of the relationship between elements and exhalations within Aristotle’s meteorological perspective will be addressed as well.
Early Science and Medicine, 2019
This paper explores the medieval debates concerning problems with the Aristotelian theory of the production and transmission of solar heat as presented in De Caelo II, 7 and Meteorologica I, 3. In these passages, Aristotle states that celestial heat is generated by the friction set up in the air by the motion of celestial bodies. This statement is difficult to reconcile with Aristotle’s cosmology, which presupposes that the heavenly bodies are not surrounded by air, but by aether, and that the celestial spheres are perfectly smooth, and therefore cannot cause any friction. In their commentaries on De Caelo and on Meteorologica, the Latin commentators elaborated a model that solves these difficulties. In this attempt, they invoke a non-mechanical principle, namely celestial influence.
Cosmic Order, the Erinyes, and the Sun Heraclitus and Column IV (44) of the Derveni Papyrus
G. Most (ed.), Studies on the Derveni Papyrus vol. 2, Oxford, 2022
Column IV (44) of the Derveni papyrus has received special attention from scholars for multiple reasons. Among the opening columns, this is the one which seems to bring together the two main themes of the papyrus, eschatology and cosmology, primarily through the cosmological role attributed to the Erinyes.¹ Moreover, the bottom part of the column contains arguably the earliest direct mention and quotation of Heraclitus,² raising intriguing questions about the Derveni author's relation to Heraclitus, as well as about the text and the in ter pretation of the relevant Heraclitean fragments. The text of this column was considered relatively well-established and stable up until recently. The most recent editions, however, introduced a number of modifications, some relatively minor, others more momentous, which necessitate a thorough reconsideration of this column.³ On the basis of the new edition of Piano, presented in this volume, we offer a systematic commentary and reassessment of the text, its reconstruction, and interpretation. In doing so, we will pay special attention to the alternative possible interpretations of the first lines of the column, to the way in which the author introduces Heraclitus in ll. 5-6, and then to the question of how much, if