DOCSLIB.ORG

Porphyry, and the Platonic-Aristotelian Tradition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Porphyry, and the Platonic-Aristotelian Tradition P O R P H Y R Y And the Platonic-Aristotelian Tradition by Charles J. Rappé M.A.,Ph.D. Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Friedrich A. Uehlein Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Gunter Figal Vorsitzender des Promotionsausschusses des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses der Philosophischen Fakultäten I-IV: Prof. Dr. Anz Datum der Fachprüfung im Promotionsfach: 18.11.2002 Table of Contents Preface------------------------------------------6 Introduction-------------------------------------7 Notes-------------------------------------------16 Chapter One: Porphyry and the Early Hellenic Culture---------19 1. Epistle to Anebo-----------------------------19 2. On the Cave of the Nymphs--------------------22 3. The Life of Pythagoras/ Introduction---------35 3.a. A Pythagorean Canon------------------------38 3.b. Orphism, the Mystery Religion--------------41 3.c. Porphyry’s Pythagoras----------------------42 4. Concluding Remarks---------------------------45 Notes----------------------------------------46 Chapter Two: Plato’s Relation and Contribution to Porphyry---52 Introduction------------------------------------52 1. Plato’s Doctrine of the Soul-----------------53 1.1. The Theory of Ideas------------------------53 1.1.a. Some Clarification of the Word Idea------55 1.2. The One and the Indefinite Dyad------------57 1.3. Was Plato’s Viewpoint Dualistic?-----------65 1.4. Knowledge through Dialectics---------------67 2 1.5. On the Nature of the Soul------------------69 1.5.a. Truth/Knowledge Connatural to Soul-------70 1.5.a.1. Knowledge as Catharsis-----------------73 1.5.a.2. The Philosopher Daemon-----------------75 1.5.b. Man as Soul------------------------------81 1.5.b.1. The Origin and Essence of Psyche-------83 1.5.b.2. Dualism in Man?------------------------89 1.5.c. The World Soul---------------------------94 1.5.c.1. The Belief in the individual soul------98 1.5.c.2. Is Plato the Founder of Acosmism?------99 2. The Transition to Middle Platonism and its Concept of Soul/ Introduction-----------100 2.1. Albinus’ Doctrine of the Soul-------------106 2.2. Numenius and Psyche-----------------------107 3. The Soul according to Porphyry / Introduction--------------------------------109 3.1. Soul’s Relation to the Body---------------110 3.1.a. To Gaurus, on the Way the Embryo Receives the Soul-----------------------116 3.2. Soul and its Elements---------------------121 3.3. The Soul’s Uncoupling from Body-----------123 3.4. From Psyche to Nous-----------------------125 4. Concluding Remarks--------------------------128 Notes------------------------------------------130 Chapter Three: Porphyry and Aristotle-------------------------141 Introduction-----------------------------------141 1. Commentaries on Aristotle’s Logic-----------145 A. Isagoge----------------------------------145 3 B. On Aristotle Categories------------------151 C. Modern Ramifications of UPR, universale post rem----------------------157 2. Simplicius’ Fragments and Testimony: concerning Porphyry’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—------------------------159 A. Hellenic Philosophy of Nature------------160 B. Porphyry’s Commentary--------------------163 3. Concluding Remarks--------------------------166 Notes---------------------------------------167 Chapter Four: Porphyry and Plotinus--------------------------171 Introduction-----------------------------------171 1. Porphyry in the School of Plotinus----------172 2. Main Similarities and Differences between Porphyry and Plotinus-----------------------175 Notes---------------------------------------178 Chapter Five: Porphyry’s Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides----180 Introduction-----------------------------------180 1. Preliminary Context-------------------------181 1.a. The Hypotheses of the Parmenides----------181 1.b. Ontological Difference: in light of the Sophist-------------------182 4 1.c. The Neoplatonic Interpretation of the Hypotheses-------------------------184 2. Synoptic Analysis of Porphyry’s Commentary Fragments------------------------185 3. The One simply One--------------------------189 3.1. Negative and Positive Theology------------189 3.2. The One as Pure Indeterminate Being-------190 3.2.1. The Will of the One---------------------191 3.2.2. The Twofold Status of Intelligence------193 3.2.3. Neoplatonic Triad-----------------------197 4. The One which is: Determinate Being---------201 Notes---------------------------------------203 Afterword--------------------------------------208 Notes---------------------------------------210 Addenda----------------------------------------211 Proclus’ Parmenides Commentary-----------------211 Notes------------------------------------------217 Bibliography-----------------------------------218 5 Preface I would like to express first of all my gratitude to my doctoral advisor, Prof. Friedrich A. Uehlein. It is appropriate for me to say that this study owes much to his subtle and lucid suggestions. In the following we shall endeavor to enhance Porphyry’s contribution to Neoplatonism by examining his position vis-à-vis a number of thinkers both prior and immediately subsequent to him in the hope of complementing recent studies which in my opinion have polished his hitherto lackluster role as an original philosopher in this current of thought. The reasons for dedicating such an enquiry are stated in the introduction. The Greek terms tÕ Ôn, ei\nai are respectively rendered into English as being and Being. Where specifically indicated, translations here are my own, (CR). Unless otherwise stated quotations from Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus are drawn from: a) The Dialogues of Plato, translated by B. Jowett, Oxford 1892, b) The Basic works of Aristotle, ed. by R. Mckeon, New York 1941, c) Plotinus, The Enneads, translated by S. MacKenna, Oxford 1969. A key to the name symbols is contained by the respective author/work in the bibliography. C.J.Rappé Freiburg i.Br. 6 Introduction OÙkoàn e„ ›teron meVn ¹ oÙs…a, ›teron deV tÕ ›n, oÜte tù ›n tÕ ›n tÁj oÙs…aj ›teron oÜte tù oÙs…a ei\nai ¹ oÙs…a toà ˜nÕj ¥llo, ¢ll¦ tù ˜tšrJ te kaˆ ¥llJ ›tera ¢ll»lwn- If Being and the One be two different things, it is not because the One is One that it is other than Being; nor because Being is Being that it is other than the One; but they differ from one another in virtue of otherness and difference-(1) It can be surely affirmed that the above passage is representative of a continuous line of thought beginning with Plato and still echoing its fateful possibilities of interpretation to anyone doing any serious philosophy. The alternative to this Platonic theory in classical Greek doctrine where the One basically transcends Being (™pškeina tÁj oÙs…aj) (2) is Aristotle’s ontology in which we find the primacy of Being and the forgetfulness of the metaphysical One of his teacher with its due implications for western thought, “But since there is something which moves while itself unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise than as it is (…). The first mover, then, exists of necessity, and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle“(3). Therefore primary Being is ¢rc», or first principle of the Aristotelian eternal cosmos and 7 the science, episteme, which investigates being qua being, tÕ ×n Î Ôn, together with the relations of non-being and becoming is metaphysics, or Prèth filosof…a (4). With these preliminary concepts which epitomize previous schools of thought (5), Aristotle discusses other known categories such as one, many, the same, like and unlike (6). a) A Paradigm of a multifaceted Outlook Porphyry was born in Tyre, a town and ancient Phoenician seaport on the coast of Lebanon 233/4 and died in Rome 305. Until recently he was known in the history of philosophy as a polymath, disciple and editor of Plotinus. In 1913 J. Bidez wrote the first comprehensive study on Porphyry. His portrait of the man is not so flattering but nevertheless it stuck for a while. “Porphyry…is one of those people whose extreme easiness to assimilate someone else’s ideas diminishes greatly any originality. If one wanted to describe him with expressions used for a contemporary writer he would say of him that he had the vivid and quick mind of an excellent journalist, a swift pen, sharp scissors and that he put these tools in turn at the service indeed of the gullibility and superstition of oriental cults, the scientific and literary critique of Longinus, and finally the religiousness of Plotinus. In what we have left of his writings, there is not a single thought, an image, of which it can be affirmed that it was his own. Not only did he contradict himself as he got older and discovered new thinkers and places, but also during the most beautiful and prolific period of his life, as he was under the influence of Plotinus, he was not even capable of setting up (between the various aspects of his intelligence) rapid and complete links so as to put an end to discrepancies and let harmony rule” (7). 8 As we shall see this judgement does not render justice to our philosopher. b) Literary and Philosophical Works In addition to his commentaries on Plato and Aristotle (8), his most influential work remains Isagoge, or an introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. This book became the basis for the teaching of logic throughout the Middle Ages and it was responsible for the dispute over universals beginning with Boethius, who translated it into Latin, down to Abelard (8a). Porphyry was also an important reference point for Renaissance Platonists. Ficino, for instance, translated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D
    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1986 The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five Michael Sollenberger Mount St. Mary's University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Sollenberger, Michael, "The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosophorum, Book Five" (1986). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 129. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/129 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. f\îc|*zx,e| lîâ& The Lives of the Peripatetics: Diogenes Laertius, Vitae Philosoohorum Book Five The biographies of six early Peripatetic philosophers are con­ tained in the fifth book of Diogenes Laertius* Vitae philosoohorum: the lives of the first four heads of the sect - Aristotle, Theophras­ tus, Strato, and Lyco - and those of two outstanding members of the school - Demetrius of Phalerum and Heraclides of Pontus, For the history of two rival schools, the Academy and the Stoa, we are for­ tunate in having not only Diogenes' versions in 3ooks Four and Seven, but also the Index Academicorum and the Index Stoicorum preserved among the papyri from Herculaneum, But for the Peripatos there-is no such second source.
    [Show full text]
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Book Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals
    FIVE TEXTS ON THE MEDIAEVAL PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS : PORPHYRY, BOETHIUS, ABELARD, DUNS SCOTUS, OCKHAM PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Paul V. Spade | 320 pages | 15 Mar 1994 | Hackett Publishing Co, Inc | 9780872202498 | English | Cambridge, MA, United States Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals : Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham PDF Book Seller Inventory APC Henry Desmond Paul. Without a doubt, it is the captivating simplicity of this picture, especially as compared with the complexity of the via antiqua picture, that was the major appeal of the Ockhamist approach. Although Abelard — under pressure to conform to an orthodoxy which, as it turned out, he was in any case accused of infringing — might accept a certain element of inexplicable mystery in the doctrine of divine triunity, he elaborated in the different versions of his Theologia a complex theory of sameness and difference, which seems to have been designed to explain in terms of logic how something can be three and yet one. Create a Want Tell us what you're looking for and once a match is found, we'll inform you by e-mail. Scotus was a great champion of St. An Explorative Study. Indeed, it is precisely this possibility that allows me to form the universal mental representation, that is, the universal concept of all particular triangles, regardless of whether they are isosceles or scalene. Hissette, R. Aben Ezra. Abelard would not hesitate, therefore, to say that, for example, it is and was always wrong for a mentally normal adult to commit adultery unless, in some way, he is unaware that it is in this case adultery because he could not fail to know that adultery is divinely forbidden and that, therefore, it shows contempt to God to perform it.
    [Show full text]
  • Proclus on the Elements and the Celestial Bodies
    PROCLUS ON THE ELEMENTS AND THE CELESTIAL BODIES PHYSICAL TH UGHT IN LATE NEOPLAT NISM Lucas Siorvanes A Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, Science Faculty, University College London. Deuember 1986 - 2 - ABSTRACT Until recently, the period of Late Antiquity had been largely regarded as a sterile age of irrationality and of decline in science. This pioneering work, supported by first-hand study of primary sources, argues that this opinion is profoundly mistaken. It focuses in particular on Proclus, the head of the Platonic School at Athens in the 5th c. AD, and the chief spokesman for the ideas of the dominant school of thought of that time, Neoplatonism. Part I, divided into two Sections, is an introductory guide to Proclus' philosophical and cosmological system, its general principles and its graded ordering of the states of existence. Part II concentrates on his physical theories on the Elements and the celestial bodies, in Sections A and B respectively, with chapters (or sub-sections) on topics including the structure, properties and motion of the Elements; light; space and matter; the composition and motion of the celestial bodies; and the order of planets. The picture that emerges from the study is that much of the Aristotelian physics, so prevalent in Classical Antiquity, was rejected. The concepts which were developed instead included the geometrization of matter, the four-Element composition of the universe, that of self-generated, free motion in space for the heavenly bodies, and that of immanent force or power.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Cynicism
    A HISTORY OF CYNICISM Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com A HISTORY OF CYNICISM From Diogenes to the 6th Century A.D. by DONALD R. DUDLEY F,llow of St. John's College, Cambrid1e Htmy Fellow at Yale University firl mll METHUEN & CO. LTD. LONDON 36 Essex Street, Strand, W.C.2 Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com First published in 1937 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN Downloaded from https://www.holybooks.com PREFACE THE research of which this book is the outcome was mainly carried out at St. John's College, Cambridge, Yale University, and Edinburgh University. In the help so generously given to my work I have been no less fortunate than in the scenes in which it was pursued. I am much indebted for criticism and advice to Professor M. Rostovtseff and Professor E. R. Goodonough of Yale, to Professor A. E. Taylor of Edinburgh, to Professor F. M. Cornford of Cambridge, to Professor J. L. Stocks of Liverpool, and to Dr. W. H. Semple of Reading. I should also like to thank the electors of the Henry Fund for enabling me to visit the United States, and the College Council of St. John's for electing me to a Research Fellowship. Finally, to• the unfailing interest, advice and encouragement of Mr. M. P. Charlesworth of St. John's I owe an especial debt which I can hardly hope to repay. These acknowledgements do not exhaust the list of my obligations ; but I hope that other kindnesses have been acknowledged either in the text or privately.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Pt: Must Translate By: 2
    Solution to Challenge 3 Start by using the description of the MPSC cipher and Hint 1. We have: pt: m u s t Translate by: 2 3 4 5 CT: P Y X Z What this tells you: 1. If “m” was shifted two to the right to arrive at “p”, the “n” or “o” must be missing in between them. That means that “n” or “o” (but not both) appear in the keyword. This assumes that “m” isn’t in the keyword, but since it lies two letters from “p” it looks like it is in the normal alphabetical sequence. 2. One of “v”, “w”, or “x” must also be in the keyword. (The keyword is not “kryptos” !). Again, this assumes that “u” is not in the keyword. 3. Once again, since “s” is about 4 letters from “x” in the normal alphabet, we assume that “s” and “x” are not in the keyword but appearing in alphabetical order. This agrees nicely with #2: “v” or “w” is in the keyword AND “t” and “u” are NOT in the keyword (since we need these letters to keep “s” and “x” 4 letters apart. 4. If “v” or “w” is in the keyword, this makes “t” 5 letters from “z” if “y” and “z” are not in the keyword. Then end of the alphabet line looks like: … m (n o ) p… s t u (v w) x y z where parentheses were used to indicate groupings where one letter is missing (and appears earlier in the keyword). In order to make further progress, one might start guessing at possible two letter words that could reasonably precede “must”: “we” and “it” come to mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Euripides” Johanna Hanink
    The Life of the Author in the Letters of “Euripides” Johanna Hanink N 1694, Joshua Barnes, the eccentric British scholar (and poet) of Greek who the next year would become Regius Professor at the University of Cambridge, published his I 1 long-awaited Euripidis quae extant omnia. This was an enormous edition of Euripides’ works which contained every scrap of Euripidean material—dramatic, fragmentary, and biographical —that Barnes had managed to unearth.2 In the course of pre- paring the volume, Barnes had got wind that Richard Bentley believed that the epistles attributed by many ancient manu- scripts to Euripides were spurious; he therefore wrote to Bentley asking him to elucidate the grounds of his doubt. On 22 February 1693, Bentley returned a letter to Barnes in which he firmly declared that, with regard to the ancient epistles, “tis not Euripides himself that here discourseth, but a puny sophist that acts him.” Bentley did, however, recognize that convincing others of this would be a difficult task: “as for arguments to prove [the letters] spurious, perhaps there are none that will convince any person that doth not discover it by himself.”3 1 On the printing of the book and its early distribution see D. McKitterick, A History of Cambridge University Press I Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge, 1534–1698 (Cambridge 1992) 380–392; on Joshua Barnes see K. L. Haugen, ODNB 3 (2004) 998–1001. 2 C. Collard, Tragedy, Euripides and Euripideans (Bristol 2007) 199–204, re- hearses a number of criticisms of Barnes’ methods, especially concerning his presentation of Euripidean fragments (for which he often gave no source, and which occasionally consisted of lines from the extant plays).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Two Democritus and the Different Limits to Divisibility
    CHAPTER TWO DEMOCRITUS AND THE DIFFERENT LIMITS TO DIVISIBILITY § 0. Introduction In the previous chapter I tried to give an extensive analysis of the reasoning in and behind the first arguments in the history of philosophy in which problems of continuity and infinite divisibility emerged. The impact of these arguments must have been enormous. Designed to show that rationally speaking one was better off with an Eleatic universe without plurality and without motion, Zeno’s paradoxes were a challenge to everyone who wanted to salvage at least those two basic features of the world of common sense. On the other hand, sceptics, for whatever reason weary of common sense, could employ Zeno-style arguments to keep up the pressure. The most notable representative of the latter group is Gorgias, who in his book On not-being or On nature referred to ‘Zeno’s argument’, presumably in a demonstration that what is without body and does not have parts, is not. It is possible that this followed an earlier argument of his that whatever is one, must be without body.1 We recognize here what Aristotle calls Zeno’s principle, that what does not have bulk or size, is not. Also in the following we meet familiar Zenonian themes: Further, if it moves and shifts [as] one, what is, is divided, not being continuous, and there [it is] not something. Hence, if it moves everywhere, it is divided everywhere. But if that is the case, then everywhere it is not. For it is there deprived of being, he says, where it is divided, instead of ‘void’ using ‘being divided’.2 Gorgias is talking here about the situation that there is motion within what is.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pythagoreans in the Light and Shadows of Recent Research
    The Pythagoreans in the light and shadows of recent research PAPER PRESENTED AT THE DONNERIAN SYMPOSIUM ON MYSTICISM, SEPTEMBER 7th 1968 By HOLGER THESLEFF It has been said' that "Pythagoras casts a long shadow in the history of Greek thought". Indeed, the shadow both widens and deepens spectacularly in course of time. He has not only been considered—on disputable grounds, as we shall see as the first European mystic. No other personality of the Greco–Roman world (except Christ, and perhaps Alexander the Great) has been credited with such powers and all-round capacities. Since early Impe- rial times he has been represented as a man of divine origin, a saint, a sage, a prophet, and a great magician; a sportsman and an ascetic; a poet and prose- writer; a Dorian nationalist (though an Ionian by birth); an eminent mathe- matician, musician, astronomer, logician, rhetorician, and physician; a world-wide traveller; a founder of a religious sect, an ethical brotherhood, and a political community; a great metaphysician and teacher whose views of the universe, human society and the human soul deeply influenced not only Plato and Aristotle, but Herakleitos, Parmenides, Demokritos and, in short, all prominent thinkers; a preacher of universal tolerance, and—a good hus- band and father. There can be seen occasional signs of a revival of Pythagoreanism at least from the ist century A. D. onwards,2 and some authors of the Imperial age 1 Philip (below), p. 3. 2 If Pseudo-Pythagorica are left out of account, the activity of the Sextii in Rome during the reign of Augustus is the first manifest sign.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonism: the Last Ten Years
    The International Journal The International Journal of the of the Platonic Tradition 9 (2015) 205-220 Platonic Tradition brill.com/jpt Critical Notice ∵ Neoplatonism: The Last Ten Years The past decade or so has been an exciting time for scholarship on Neo­ platonism. I ought to know, because during my stint as the author of the “Book Notes” on Neoplatonism for the journal Phronesis, I read most of what was published in the field during this time. Having just handed the Book Notes over to George Boys­Stones, I thought it might be worthwhile to set down my overall impressions of the state of research into Neoplatonism. I cannot claim to have read all the books published on this topic in the last ten years, and I am here going to talk about certain themes and developments in the field rather than trying to list everything that has appeared. So if you are an admirer, or indeed author, of a book that goes unmentioned, please do not be affronted by this silence—it does not necessarily imply a negative judgment on my part. I hope that the survey will nonetheless be wide­ranging and comprehensive enough to be useful. I’ll start with an observation made by Richard Goulet,1 which I have been repeating to students ever since I read it. Goulet conducted a statistical analy­ sis of the philosophical literature preserved in the original Greek, and discov­ ered that almost three­quarters of it (71%) was written by Neoplatonists and commentators on Aristotle. In a sense this should come as no surprise.
    [Show full text]