La tomba del Tuffatore: rito, arte e poesia a Paestum e nel Mediterraneo d’epoca tardo-arcaica. A cura di Angelo Meriani, Gabriel Zuchtriegel. Pisa: ETS, 2020
About forty years ago Walter Burkert, the great classical scholar, offered new definitions
of Orp... more About forty years ago Walter Burkert, the great classical scholar, offered new definitions
of Orphism as a craft and of Pythagoreanism as a sect. Soon these two models pushed the traditional concepts applied to Orphics and Pythagoreans, such as ‘religious movement’ and ‘philosophical school’, into the background. This paper considers the origin of these models in the historiography of Greek religion and sociology of religion and explores further how valid they are today, after the unprecedented growth of new evidence on Orphism and a slow shift in views on Pythagoreanism. A theoretical and historical analysis of the two models shows that they are no longer suitable for describing the realia of the two movements, one of which was religious and the other socio-political and intellectual.
Uploads
Books by Leonid Zhmud
Papers by Leonid Zhmud
economic development of antiquity in terms of the then prevailing notions of progress, and corresponding to this historical period was a very primitive economic order and closed-household economy. Such an archaization of the ancient economy was opposed by Eduard Meyer, an outstanding historian of the ancient world, who not only saw many capitalist elements in antiquity (they were previously discerned by T. Mommsen and later by his students M. Weber, J. Beloch, U. Wilken, R. Pöhlmann etc.) but who in principle rejected the theory of progress in favor of the theory of cycles, or two parallel periods in world history. M. Rostovtzeff shared this theory in his early article “Capitalism and the National Economy in the Ancient World” (1900) which contains many ideas that he later developed in his major works on the social and economic history of Hellenism and the Roman Empire.
Evaluating the discussions about Hellenistic and Roman capitalism, we should consider the struggle between primitivists and modernizers to be an integral part of and a powerful stimulus to the scholarly understanding of antiquity, which uses explanatory models. In the second half of the nineteenth century the concept of capitalism had not yet been fully developed and therefore its scope and content in the works of Rostovtzeff, his associates and critics did in face vary significantly. The doctrine of socio-economic formations (slaveholding, feudal, capitalist etc.), habitual to Soviet scholars, was developed only in the 1930s, thus forcing many Soviet historians to abandon their previous views of the historical process.
The leading historian of ancient economy after Rostovtzeff, M. Finley, though used Weberian concepts, tended rather to side with the primitivists. In general he insisted on the self-sufficiency of cells of the ancient economy and denied any tangible technological progress or economic growth throughout ancient history. By the end of the twentieth century it became clear that the model proposed by Finley needed at very least the same modification as Rostovtzeff’s theory. Unlike Rostovtzeff’s theories, his histories remain unsuperceded.
of Orphism as a craft and of Pythagoreanism as a sect. Soon these two models pushed the traditional concepts applied to Orphics and Pythagoreans, such as ‘religious movement’ and ‘philosophical school’, into the background. This paper considers the origin of these models in the historiography of Greek religion and sociology of religion and explores further how valid they are today, after the unprecedented growth of new evidence on Orphism and a slow shift in views on Pythagoreanism. A theoretical and historical analysis of the two models shows that they are no longer suitable for describing the realia of the two movements, one of which was religious and the other socio-political and intellectual.
economic development of antiquity in terms of the then prevailing notions of progress, and corresponding to this historical period was a very primitive economic order and closed-household economy. Such an archaization of the ancient economy was opposed by Eduard Meyer, an outstanding historian of the ancient world, who not only saw many capitalist elements in antiquity (they were previously discerned by T. Mommsen and later by his students M. Weber, J. Beloch, U. Wilken, R. Pöhlmann etc.) but who in principle rejected the theory of progress in favor of the theory of cycles, or two parallel periods in world history. M. Rostovtzeff shared this theory in his early article “Capitalism and the National Economy in the Ancient World” (1900) which contains many ideas that he later developed in his major works on the social and economic history of Hellenism and the Roman Empire.
Evaluating the discussions about Hellenistic and Roman capitalism, we should consider the struggle between primitivists and modernizers to be an integral part of and a powerful stimulus to the scholarly understanding of antiquity, which uses explanatory models. In the second half of the nineteenth century the concept of capitalism had not yet been fully developed and therefore its scope and content in the works of Rostovtzeff, his associates and critics did in face vary significantly. The doctrine of socio-economic formations (slaveholding, feudal, capitalist etc.), habitual to Soviet scholars, was developed only in the 1930s, thus forcing many Soviet historians to abandon their previous views of the historical process.
The leading historian of ancient economy after Rostovtzeff, M. Finley, though used Weberian concepts, tended rather to side with the primitivists. In general he insisted on the self-sufficiency of cells of the ancient economy and denied any tangible technological progress or economic growth throughout ancient history. By the end of the twentieth century it became clear that the model proposed by Finley needed at very least the same modification as Rostovtzeff’s theory. Unlike Rostovtzeff’s theories, his histories remain unsuperceded.
of Orphism as a craft and of Pythagoreanism as a sect. Soon these two models pushed the traditional concepts applied to Orphics and Pythagoreans, such as ‘religious movement’ and ‘philosophical school’, into the background. This paper considers the origin of these models in the historiography of Greek religion and sociology of religion and explores further how valid they are today, after the unprecedented growth of new evidence on Orphism and a slow shift in views on Pythagoreanism. A theoretical and historical analysis of the two models shows that they are no longer suitable for describing the realia of the two movements, one of which was religious and the other socio-political and intellectual.
education of a “free man”, was a new social practice that originated in the fourth century BC and greatly contributed to the growing public acceptance of science. Due to this educational practice that became common during the Hellenistic period many young men from wealthy families who took the course of enkyklios paideia, received instruction in the four mathēmata: geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and harmonics. Although the widespread use of this model of education coincided with the sudden quantitative and qualitative decline of Greek science in the first century BC, a considerable number of educated people from the higher strata of society were becoming familiar, albeit in varying degrees, with scientific knowledge and methods. Thus, mathēmata were ingrained in society to an extent that enabled them to survive, albeit with serious losses, the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages, when the volume and quality of scientific
knowledge drastically declined, and their preservation became part of the social role of
the clergyman.
когда создавался его главный историко-научный труд — «Механика Леонардо да Винчи», который он защитил в 1939 г. как докторскую диссертацию, но сумел издать только в 1947 г. Получив образование у ученых старой школы, Л. П. Карсавина, И. М. Гревса, А. И. Хоментовской, Гуковский далеко не сразу нашел себя как историк, его научная и организационная деятельность в Комиссии по истории знаний и в Институте истории науки и техники началась уже после «великого перелома», резко усилившего идеологическое давление на гуманитарные науки. В статьях и рецензиях этого времени Гуковский предстает как ученый нового поколения, способный не только сочетать академическую ученость с марксистским пониманием
истории вообще и истории науки и техники в частности, но и формировать новую методологию их исследования, согласующуюся с задачами времени.
Two ancient classiciafication of sciences: Aristotle and Geminus
The paper examines the division of cognitive space in Antiquity as exemplified by the two most influential classifications of sciences, by Aristotle and Geminus, which underlie all sub-sequent classifications of scientific disciplines until the 18th century. Aristotle, considering the mathēmata in their comparison with the “first” and especially with the “second”, physical philosophy, proceeds from the independence of all three kinds of epistēmai and strives to draw the most rigid boundaries possible both between them and within the field of mathēmata. Geminus’ classification reflects the far-reaching differentiation of sciences at the end of Hellenism, when almost all of them acquired several auxiliary disciplines, theoretical or applied, and when “mathematics” became synonymous with “science.”
NOTE: The earlier uploaded file contained several mistakes.