Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-05T02:44:45.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philoponus, Diodorus, and Possibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Nicholas Denyer
Nicholas Denyer
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The definition here ascribed to Philo is entirely in line with what we know of Philo from else where: Alex. Aphr. in APr. 184.6–10; Simp, in Cat. 195.33–196.5; Boethius, in de Int. 234.10–15. The same is not true of the definition here ascribed to Diodorus. For Diodorus, we are told elsewhere, defined the possible as that which either is or will be so: Cic. Fat. 13, 17; Plu. de Stoic rep. 1055d-e; Alex. Aphr. in APr. 183.42–184.5; Boethius, in de Int. 234.22–4,412.16–7. Something has therefore got garbled.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , May 1998 , pp. 327
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1998

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

1 Phlp. in APr.169.17–21. This is fr. 136 in the collection of Doring, K., Die Megariker(Amsterdam, 1972)Google Scholar; and part of ft. II F 27 in the collection of Giannantoni, G., Socratis et Socraticorum Reliquiae(Naples, 1990). Both Doring, pp. 39–43, and Giannantoni, i.429–33, reprint all the other passages here cited.Google Scholar

2 I am grateful to Neil Hopkinson for helpful advice.