Encyclopedia of sacred theology - pagina 28

4

§ 3.

qiiem

TRANSITION AMONG THE FATHERS

(xraeci i'yKVKXiov TraiBeiav vocaiit,

understanding, as

is

positum

est

:

in so far as

unum

I

based :n a mis-

is

also that of Vitruvius

encyclios disciplina uti corpus

I. 2,

[Div.

I.

6, praef.,

and

ex his meynhris com-

both evidently argued from the

general significance of the word ijKVKXto';, instead of asking

how

themselves the question

Greeks

in

chiefly to

with

connection

what was normal,

was actually used by the

it

This

iraiSeia.

use

referred

as Hesychius also interprets

by saying, ra ijKVKXov/xeva tw

/3t&)

koI avvrjOr]

;

it

and Strabo,

writes that we should not call "him who is wholly uneducated a statesman, but him who partakes of the allround and customary training of freemen." We should the normal measure of knowledge which a civilized say But Quintilian and Vitruvius citizen has at command. in so far as they showed themselves imwere correct pressed with the fact that there was a reason why the Athenians did not speak of (Tvvr)6ri<i iraiBeia, but purposely The Greek language was not spoke of iyKVK\Lo<i iraiheCa. A Greek understood and a crystallized one, like the Latin. saw through the word ijKVKXio'i, and, when he used it in the sense of normal, he did not abandon the original significance

who

:

With reference to his conception of it, the use word in connection with TraiSeta plainly shows (1) that from the knowledge of his times taken as a

of kvk\o<;. of this

:

whole he separated certain parts

(2) that he did not choose these parts arbitrarily, but that he arranged them

after a given standard

ard from a circle of

;

;

and (3) that he derived tliis standand that, in connection with this

life,

circle of life, he grouped his separated parts of human kno^\ledge so as to form one whole. And this threefold action of his mind assumed, at the same time, that i;e had more or less objectified for himself the whole of human knowledge. § 3.

Transition

among

tl'e

Fathers

In every distinction lurk> an antithesis. Tlie iyKv/c\Lo<i which was also called iyKVKXta ixaOrjfiara, Traihev-

TracSeia,

/xara,

or

more simpl}' still ra what was beneath

antithesis to

iyKvjcXia, it,

— he

did not st.ind in

who had no

ijKV-

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen