bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Neoplatonism
Authors: Wear Sarah Klitenic 
Published: June 2013

Neoplatonism (also called “Platonism”) refers to the school of philosophical and religious thought, beginning with the philosopher Plotinus (b. 204–d. 270 ce), which is marked by certain metaphysical teachings on Plato and Aristotle. After Plotinus, the three major periods of Neoplatonism include: the writings of Plotinus’s student, Porphyry (b. 232–d. 305); Iamblichus and the school of Calchis (d. 326); and the 5th- and 6th-century schools of Athens and Alexandria, including Syrianus (d. 437), Proclus (b. 412–d. 485), Damascius (b. 458–d. 538), and Olympiodorus (b. c. 500–d. 570). Each of these three major movements also includes a great many other writers, particularly the last phase of late antique Neoplatonism, which was marked by a pronounced interest in commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle, with commentaries on the latter being particularly prevalent in 5th- and 6th-century Alexandria. Moreover, while “Neoplatonism” generally refers to the writings of pagans, the movement was heavily influential among Christian, Jewish, and Arabic thinkers, who adopted terminology and metaphysical principles well into the medieval period. As an extreme example of this, the Christian thinker Pseudo-Dionysius (fl. 500?) not only adopted much of Proclus’s language and thought, but parts of his treatises have been found to be a word for word copying of Proclus’s writing. Although Neoplatonism represents a wide group of authors, styles, and interests certain trends can be found throughout members of the philosophical movement; namely, Neoplatonists believe that the One is the principle of unification and source of all creation; all things emanate from the One and all things return to the One. Below the One is the level of Intellect, which houses the forms, followed by the Soul. One, Intellect, and Soul are all related to each other, with Intellect in some way emanating from the One, and returning to the One, and Soul, which emanates from and returns to Intellect. In Neoplatonic thought, the individual soul of man in some way returns to the One, by means of contemplation of the One and, for some authors, through sacramental practices known as theurgy. While Neoplatonists have these basic principles in common, authors vary in their understandings of the structure of the universe. Later authors, moreover, tend to introduce a greater number of intermediary entities. Because of the breadth of this subject matter, the bibliography will need to be limited to general works on Neoplatonism, works on particular topics, and works on only a handful of key authors who are considered to be key figures in the Athenian and Alexandrian schools of Neoplatonism: Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Damascius, and Olympiodorus. For other authors, see the section General Overviews.
Bertrand Russell
Authors: Griffin Nicholas 
Published: June 2013

Bertrand Russell (b. 1872–d. 1970) was arguably the most important philosopher of the 20th century. He was one of the main founders of what came to be known as analytic philosophy, which was preeminent in the English-speaking world throughout most of the 20th century. His most important contributions, especially in the first part of his career, were in logic and the philosophy of mathematics, but he made important contributions to almost all branches of philosophy, especially to epistemology and metaphysics. His philosophy went through a series of fairly rapid changes, which has made it natural to study his work developmentally. He wrote prolifically, much of his early work was extremely technical, and a surprising amount of material was left unpublished by him and has appeared only posthumously in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell (Russell 1983–, cited under Primary Sources). As a result, there is no detailed survey of his entire philosophical output by a single author; full-career surveys tend to be either brief or collections of papers, and more substantial commentaries tend to focus on particular periods or topics. Our understanding of Russell’s philosophy has been transformed since his death by the availability of so much new material in his archives. As a result, earlier studies of his work need to be treated with caution. In addition to his philosophical work, Russell wrote even more extensively on matters of social and political concern. He was politically engaged throughout his life, especially in matters relating to war and peace and freedom of the individual. I am grateful to Kenneth Blackwell, Andrew Bone, William Bruneau, Jolen Galaugher, Dustin Olson, Graham Stevens, and the referees for OBO for several useful suggestions.
Benedictines After 1100
Authors: Heale Martin 
Published: June 2013

Although many of the greatest monasteries in Europe during the High Middle Ages and late medieval period were Benedictine, historians have often presented the black monks as in crisis or decline for much of the post-1100 period. New Benedictine foundations were relatively rare after this date, and much lay patronage was redirected to new expressions of the monastic life, such as the Cistercians or regular canons. The rhetoric of new monastic orders, which presented themselves as “reformed” versions of or necessary departures from traditional Benedictine monasticism, has also influenced historians’ interpretations of the black monks. Thus general surveys of medieval monasticism, such as Lawrence 2001 and Melville 2016 (both cited under General Europe-Wide Surveys), focus almost entirely on new monastic and mendicant orders after c. 1100. But as much recent historiography has shown, the Benedictines remained highly influential throughout the entire medieval period. In many parts of Europe, they retained the support of kings and aristocratic patrons into the 16th century. Collectively, they possessed very substantial estates and urban properties. They served the social and spiritual needs of their lay neighbors through (for example) their hospitality, almsgiving, and pilgrimage sites. And although no longer preeminent in intellectual and artistic life, they remained committed to intellectual studies and continued to be major patrons of art, architecture, and music. The later Middle Ages also saw projects for Benedictine renewal, particularly in the form of reformed congregations in continental Europe. This bibliography contains work on all these areas of research. It does not include the Cluniac branch of the black monks or Benedictine nuns, which are covered in separate Oxford Bibliographies articles.
Richard Knapwell
Authors: Dougherty M.V. 
Published: June 2013

The English Dominican friar and theologian Richard Knapwell (Clapwell) (fl. 1284–1286) is best known as an early defender of Thomas Aquinas. He was the first to respond to William de la Mare’s Correctorium fratris Thomae (Correction of Brother Thomas), a Franciscan attack consisting of 117 articles identifying purported errors drawn from several of Aquinas’s major writings. Knapwell’s detailed riposte, composed in the early 1280s, was the earliest and most extensive of a series of polemical Correctoria corruptorii fratris Thomae (Corrections of the Corruptor of Brother Thomas) that would appear, and Knapwell’s contribution is known as the Correctorium “Quare.” Knapwell’s commitment to Aquinas’s writings, however, was not fully evident in his earlier work, as Knapwell had lectured on the Sententiae of Peter Lombard at Oxford sometime between 1269 and 1277, and his surviving notes or Notabilia exhibit an admixture of views taken from Aquinas and Augustine. After writing the Correctorium “Quare,” Knapwell incepted as a master in theology at Oxford in 1284–1285, and not long afterward he produced the De unitate formae (On the unity of form), a disputed question that brought about his condemnation. In that work, Knapwell asserted the theological neutrality of the Aristotelian metaphysical thesis that there is a single substantial form in human beings. The unity of form thesis was opposed by those who posited a plurality of forms, believing that the unity of form thesis was incompatible with a host of theological issues such as whether Christ’s body in the tomb was numerically identical with the body of the living Christ. In October 1284 the Franciscan archbishop of Canterbury John Pecham had renewed the prohibitions of 1277 concerning the unity of form thesis previously set by his Dominican predecessor, Robert Kilwardby. On the basis of Knapwell’s defense of the unity of form in De unitate formae, Pecham excommunicated Knapwell in April 1286. Knapwell traveled to Rome to argue his case before the pope, but the newly elected Franciscan pontiff Nicholas IV responded by silencing him in 1288. Nothing definite is known about his later activities. The extant works of Knapwell (beyond the abovementioned Notabilia, Correctorium “Quare,” and De unitate formae) include six additional disputed questions that pertain mostly to issues of human and divine cognition, and one short Quodlibet of twenty-nine questions on a variety of topics.
Women and Science
Authors: Cooper Alix 
Published: June 2013

Until relatively recently, women were seen as having played little part in the “Scientific Revolution” of the 16th and 17th centuries. Textbook narratives of the transformations in astronomy and physics inaugurated by Nicolaus Copernicus (b. 1473–d. 1543) and brought to completion by Isaac Newton (b. 1642–d. 1727) told a heroic story of the intellectual achievements of exceptional men of genius. Over the past several decades, however, research investigating the actual practice of science during this period—or, to be more accurate, the wide range of activities we nowadays see as comprising natural science—has revealed a multitude of ways in which women were, in fact, involved in the production of natural knowledge. As historians of science have shown, women of the early modern period carried out astronomical observations, conducted experimental procedures in distillation, theorized about the nature of nature, and even traveled vast distances in order to study the flora and fauna of far-off places. Scholars examining early modern social and cultural patterns that excluded women, and there were many, have also discovered numerous factors that enabled women of this period to participate in natural inquiry. Studies of the role of ideas of gender more broadly in early modern ideas of “nature” have further enriched understanding of women and science.
Hannah Arendt
Authors: Maloney Steven 
Published: June 2013

Hannah Arendt (b. 1906–d. 1975) was a singular political theorist and a voracious reader. Arendt’s works show traces of influence from a diverse cross-section of political writers. Her works are noted for their similarities to the civic republic tradition, existential philosophy, critical theory, and pragmatism, to name a few. Despite these influences, her work is difficult to pigeonhole into any single category. Her academic voice and theoretical positions also changed over time. Indeed, her work can be compared to that of a painter who composes sketches and studies to work out the contours of form and method before creating a major work. Arendt’s diverse “sketches and studies,” as well as the breadth of her references and influences, have resulted in divergent interpretations of her work from academics and readers alike.
Eugenics
Authors: Sheehy Kieron 
Published: June 2013

Charles Darwin (b. 1809–d. 1882) published On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). These texts instigated public awareness and discussion of evolutionary theory. They inspired the development of social Darwinism, which attempts to apply evolutionary ideas to the social world as route for social progress. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton (b. 1822–d. 1911), proposed that the “human stock” could be improved by controlled breeding. Galton founded the science of human eugenics. He defined human eugenics as “the study of the agencies under social control that seek to improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally” (Memories of My Life. 2d ed. London: Methuen, 1908, p. 321). Part of Galton’s argument, described in Hereditary Genius (Galton 1998, cited under History) was that social hierarchies and class were indicative of “fitness” and therefore reflected inborn differences in ability and worth. He assumed that men of status in society held this position due to their natural superiority and therefore that the structure of society reflected inborn natural differences. Consequently social welfare was perceived as inherently flawed, as allowing less “fit” members of society to procreate was detrimental to developing a healthy society and against the laws of nature. A central issue for eugenicists was that of preventing or remediating racial deterioration. Breeding better people, through eugenic marriages and removing the weaker elements of society improves society and does “providentially, quickly and kindly” what nature did “blindly, slowly and ruthlessly” (Galton cited in Kevles 1985, p. 12; cited under General Overviews). Galton established an anthropometric laboratory to collect measurements of human abilities and characteristics. He developed the use of the statistical concept of normal distribution from which he could predict, for example, how many people one could expect to find at different levels of mental ability. The categorization and measurement of abilities became a central part of eugenic thought. Eugenics has had a far-reaching effect on how differences between children have been constructed and acted on. Eugenics assumed a hierarchy of races, classified people according to ethnic groups, and fostered discrimination based on that assumption. Similar discrimination was practiced according to measures of intellectual ability. The influence of eugenic thinking was global and hence the bibliography necessarily draws on research encompassing each continent and many individual countries. As a research topic, eugenics is explored in many overlapping areas of research but particularly in the areas of disability, education, child care, and the application of new technologies. The issue of the eugenic conceptualization of race pervades all of these areas.
Lev Vygotsky and His Cultural-historical Approach to Development
Authors: John-Steiner Vera 
Published: June 2013

The impact of the Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky on the study of children’s development happened only very slowly because cultural and political events interfered with an exchange of ideas between Russian and Western theorists. After his untimely death, his worldwide impact was aided by the publication of his writings in English and other languages. He is increasingly cited as a key figure of the 20th century in developmental psychology and related disciplines. Vygotsky was born in 1896 and spent his childhood in Gomel as a much loved son of a large nonreligious Russian Jewish family. As a young man he experienced World War I and various occupations occasioned by the world war and the Russian civil war. He possibly witnessed pogroms and, at the end of his life, political repression. These traumatic events affected Vygotsky deeply. During his university studies, he became increasingly interested in psychology. Subsequently, he taught in a public school in Gomel and began to think systematically about a new approach to the field of psychology. In 1924, he and his wife moved to Moscow. During the following decade Vygotsky worked closely with a group of young psychologists who shared his interests. His theoretical focus included human cognitive processes and the construction of social artifacts, such as language. In his voluminous writings, Vygotsky explored the active nature of young learners, their play and creativity, the importance of the distinction between lower (biologically rooted) functions and higher (meaning-oriented) activities, the relationships between learning and development and between thought and language. Vygotsky distinguished himself in constructing a system of cultural-historical concepts (CHAT) that are still being developed. The CHAT approach is but one of many interpretations of Vygotsky’s legacy, which has taken somewhat different forms in Western and non-Western scholarly communities. Some of his work was schematic due to his recurrent illness of tuberculosis. His best-known books are Thought and Language, the edited volume Mind in Society, and his Collected Works (six volumes). He died on 11 June 1934 in Moscow. The contemporary impact of his work is due, in part, to his focus on the development of processes rather than the measurement of maturational-driven outcomes. This dynamic approach to learning has been of particular importance to educators, who have used his ideas to create programs that support children’s active construction of knowledge and in which language plays a central role in educational growth.
The Needham Question
Authors: Sivin Nathan 
Published: June 2013

The “Needham Question” or “Needham Problem,” also misleadingly called “the Needham Paradox,” refers to the guiding question behind Joseph Needham’s (b. 1900–d. 1995) massive Science and Civilisation in China, as well as his many other publications. As he phrased it, “the essential problem [is] why modern science had not developed in Chinese civilization (or Indian) but only in Europe.” He went on to consider another quite different question, equally important, and centered his historical research on it: “why, between the first century bc and the fifteenth century ad, Chinese civilization was much more efficient than occidental in applying human natural knowledge to practical human needs” (p. 190 of The Grand Titration [Needham 1969], cited under Basic Works by Needham). To seek answers, he compiled what Europeans had learned over three hundred years about science, medicine, and technology in China. Substantial original investigations by Needham and his several collaborators, of whom the best known were Lu Gwei-djen (Guizhen), Wang Ling, and Ho Peng Yoke (Bingyu), expanded and added depth to the picture, and Needham’s interpretations of the results gave it coherence.
One Country, Two Systems
Authors: Cheng Joseph 
Published: June 2013

Deng Xiaoping (b. 1903–d. 1997) secured power and launched a policy program of economic reforms and an opening to the external world at the end of 1978. He also initiated a peace offensive toward Taiwan, and had to face a new challenge in China’s Hong Kong policy. In January 1979, the Chinese authorities announced a nine-point proposal for solving the Taiwan issue and guaranteed that after reunification, the existing economic and social systems, as well as the way of life, would remain unchanged. Subsequently, the new Constitution of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in December 1982 contains a new provision; Article 31 states, “The state may establish special administrative regions (SAR) when necessary” (available online). In March 1979, Sir Murray MacLehose (b. 1917–d. 2000), then Governor of Hong Kong, visited Beijing. He met Deng Xiaoping and formally raised “the New Territories lease” question. Chinese leaders gradually began to understand that the Hong Kong future issue could no longer be delayed. The view of recovery gained a distinct edge; Liao Chengzhi (b. 1908–d. 1983), head of the newly established Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the State Council, was given the responsibility of planning for the recovery of the territory. In April 1981, he proposed the “one country, two systems” model policy, which demonstrated the Chinese leadership’s liberation in thinking at that time. The leadership was eager to show the world that China could govern Hong Kong better than the British colonial administration; it wanted the Hong Kong model to have a significant demonstration effect on Taiwan. The policy played a key role in maintaining the confidence of Hong Kong people, and facilitated Chinese leaders’ success in the Sino-British negotiations on the territory’s future. In the decade and a half since Hong Kong’s return to China, the “one country, two systems” model has been working quite well. Stability and prosperity have been maintained; the rule of law and the freedoms enjoyed by the people have been largely intact. Hong Kong’s relative international economic competitiveness has been in slow decline, and the economy has become increasingly dependent on that of Mainland China.
Early Christian Art
Authors: Marsengill Katherine 
Published: June 2013

Early Christian art history encompasses a range of material loosely dated from the first known appearances of Christian art in the late second or early third century and continuing through the sixth, seventh, and sometimes even into the early eighth centuries. Early Christian art history, however, has proven to be an inchoate term, often overlapping with, or including, Early Byzantine art history. In previous divisions of the field, Early Byzantine art tended to be too politically confining when one considers cities such as Ravenna before and after its inclusion in the Eastern Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, Early Christian art implied only the earliest centuries, usually through the fourth or mid-fifth centuries, and usually centered on Roman monuments and works of art. Thus, many scholars today favor the term Late Antique in order to integrate the study of art and architecture of the Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire as well as to understand Christian art in dialogue with Jewish and pagan art. In terms of dating, scholars generally acknowledge the genesis of Christian art and architecture around 200 ce, although some pursue theories that Christians participated in visual culture in the early second century, if they had not yet developed a distinctly Christian visual language. In terms of geography, the eastern and western Mediterranean, Palestine and the Near East, and sometimes even northern Europe and Britain are all included. One result of this large geographical span has been the separation of Early Christian art in Rome, the Eastern Mediterranean, Egypt, the Near East, and so on. Since the late twentieth century, however, scholars have generally recognized a more cohesive Mediterranean world and a more fluid transition from Late Antiquity to medieval art and culture. Questions of continuity between these periods have ultimately made dating the end of “Early Christian” or “Late Antique” difficult, if not impossible. Most scholars see the end of Late Antiquity as coinciding with the death of Justinian I or, for the convenience of a rounded date, the year 600. Others argue the end of the period occurred at the beginning of the seventh century with the spread of Islam in the Near East and across North Africa. Byzantinists sometimes recognize the beginning of the iconoclastic controversy in 730 as the end of Late Antiquity. Accordingly, “true” Byzantine-era art begins after iconoclasm in the nineth century, what some refer to as the Middle Byzantine period, which marks the beginning of a distinguishable Byzantine state and extends until the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204, then followed by the Late Byzantine period (until 1453). Those who assert the continuity of Late Antique traditions in early Islamic art have recently broached the year 800 as the cut-off point.