DOCSLIB.ORG

Proclus on the Elements and the Celestial Bodies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Furthermore, the desire to provide for a systematic unity in explanation, in science and philosophy, capable of comprehending the diversity of entities and phenomena, yielded the Neoplatonic notion that things are essentially modes or states of existence, which can be arranged in terms of a causal gradation and described accordingly. Proclus, above anyone else, applied it as a scientific method systematically. Consequently, that Proclus' physical thought is embedded in his Neoplatonic philosophy is not viewed as something regrettable, but as proof of his consistent adherence to the belief, that there must be unity in explanation, just as there is one in the universe, since only the existence of such unity renders the cosmos rational and makes certainty in science attainable. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication and Acknowledgments 5 Preface 7 List of Primary Sources 12 Biographical and Historical Note 18 Part I. A guide to Proclus' system. 25 Section A. The general principles. Introduction 26 1. The triadic motif 28 2. "All things are in everything, but appropriately" 44 3. Similarity and Sympathy 48 Section B. The modes of existence. Introduction 52 1.1. The One 56 1.2. Limit and the Unlimited 61 1.3. The henads 67 2. Being, Substance 73 3. Life, Power 79 4. Intellect 85 5.1. Soul's general properties, and the Hypercosmic Soul 94 5.2. The World Soul 100 6. Nature 105 7. Space and Time 112 8.1. The celestial bodies 119 8.2. Celestial attendants and sublunary inhabitants 121 8.3. Cause and effect in the material world 125 8.4. The four Elements 128 8.5. Body, Matter, and the inverse hierarchy 129 (Table of contents cont.) 4 (Table of contents cont. from p.3). Part II. The physics of the Elements and the Celestial bodies. 140 Section A. The Elements of the Universe. Introduction 141 1. The Platonic background 142 2. The 15 Arguments 149 3. The properties of the Proclan Elements 163 4.1. The cosmological modes. General 178 4.2. Aether's status 190 4.3. Light 195 4.4. The Vehicle 201 5. The motion theory of the Elements 206 6. Space, Body and Matter 211 Section B. The celestial bodies. Introduction 218 1. The status of the celestial bodies 219 2. The celestial 225 3. The celestial body 234 4. Stars and spheres 243 5. The satellites 250 6.1. Celestial motion. General 255 6.2. The fixed stars, aAd the precession 261 6.3. The planets 270 7. The planetary order 282 8. Earth and the celestials 290 Review and Conclusion 294 List of quoted passages 302 Bibliography 309 to 321 - 5 - Dedicated most gratefully to George and Smaragda Siorvanes, Lisa Siorvanes, and Demetrios Soteropoulos, for all their unqualified support both moral and financial 6 Acknowledgments I should like to thank my supervisors, Prof. Piyo Rattansi of the Dept. of History and Philosophy of Science, and Dr. Robert Sharples of the Dept. of Classics, for the breadth and penetration of their comments, as well as their boundless patience and kindness. During the course, I was privileged to attend a number of seminars at the Institute of Classical Studies and Kings College London organized by Prof. Richard Sorabji, to whom I owe a special thanks for having made me sensitive to the subtleties and sophistication of ancient thought through the rigors of analytical philosophy. I also benefited from the immense knowledge of Neoplatonism (especially the later form) of Prof. Anthony C. Lloyd and Dr. Henry Blumenthal. In addition, I should like to express my gratitude to the late Dr. Charles Schmitt of Warburg Institute. I thank, also, Dr. Larry Schrenko of Washington University for his observations on the theory of place, and David Blow, a fellow Ph.D. student at the Dept. of History and Phil. of Science, for having brought to my attention a recent article on Proclus' life. An advantage of studying at the University College London is that one is placed conveniently within a short distance of among the best libraries in the world; I therefore thank the Librarians and staff of the following: University College London, Institute of Classical Studies, Warburg Institute, Senate House (University of London), British Library, Dept. of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, and Theosophical Society, London. Finally, I have pleasure in thanking Carolyn Moody for all her invaluable help. PREFACE This study explores the physical thought in late Neoplatonism, and focuses in particular on Proclus, the head of the Platonic School at Athens from about AD 437 until his death in 485. It offers a reconstruction and an examination of his views on the perennial subjects of ancient science and philosophy, the elements and the celestial bodies, within their philosophical enviroment. Two factors have influenced the choice of the subject-matter: the historical importance of the period, and the disproportionately scant scholarship devoted to it. Neoplatonism, the main intellectual movement of Late Antiquity, represents not only the final expression of ancient thought, but also the mode in which it was transmitted to the Islamic and to the Western European civilization, where it remained influential as an intellectual force even after Newton. Yet the amount of studies available is pityfully small by comparison to the earlier "Classical" period of Aristotle, Ptolemy and Galen, and the later periods of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Much of the lack of interest may be traced to the persistent preconceptions about the so-called decline and fall of classical thought, the spread of superstition, and the rigidity and forbidding complexity of the philosophical systems of that time. Such opinions, which have become commonplace, became prevalent around the turn of the century, when the very term "Neo-Platonism" was coined in an effort to distinguish it from the original, "pure" form of Platonism. Although their echoes still survive, more recent and more penetrating scholarship has begun to acquaint us with both the dynamic changes of the period and its intellectual life. In the context of the history of science, S.Samburskyls unequalled work, "The Physical World of Late Antiquity", has afforded us glimses of the lively debate over those pillars - 8- of ancient science, Aristotelian physics (whose premises were critically examined and largely rejected) and Ptolemaic astronomy (whose cosmological value was questioned), and the innovative thinking on the role of mathematics in physics, and on the concept of space. But, even he admonishes Neoplatonic philosophy (p.xii) for having a "retarding and confusing influence on scientific thinking", because, inter alia, it adhered to "the irrational belief in the ultimate unity of the cosmos" (sic). Plainly, there is more to Neoplatonism. The combination of the exiguous amount of available or indeed known literature on the subject, and the limitations inherent in a thesis, led me to concentrate on the ideas of one individual thinker, rather than embark on a general assessment of many. Fortunately, Proclus provides a good balance, since he systematized comprehensively all the Neoplatonic versions before him and dominated the ones after him. Furthermore, it was under him, that Neoplatonism reached its peak of influence. Thus, he can be rightly considered the spokesman of Neoplatonism in general, and his concepts may be treated as representative of Neoplatonism as a whole. Although Plotinus was in a sense the originator of this form of Platonism, he stands, in many ways, much like the so-called flunparticipated cause" in Proclus' philosophy, outside mainstream Neoplatonism as it developed soon after his death. Trends of thought which were already present in Porphyry (Plotinus' student and compiler of his doctrines) were expanded and added to by Iamblichus. In the Athenian School and with Proclus they developed into the famous Neoplatonism which proved to be influential in Late Antiquity and beyond. This form of Neoplatonism (4th-6th c.)9 which effectively became the Neoplatonism, is usually called "late" Neoplatonism to distinguish it from the earlier forms, especially Plotinus'. The concentration on Proclus is more than justified, m reover, by the sheer number of his writings, the majority of which (L.J.Ros gn I s estimate is 3/5 th.) are extant.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Roles of Solon in Plato's Dialogues
    The Roles of Solon in Plato’s Dialogues Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Samuel Ortencio Flores, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Bruce Heiden, Advisor Anthony Kaldellis Richard Fletcher Greg Anderson Copyrighy by Samuel Ortencio Flores 2013 Abstract This dissertation is a study of Plato’s use and adaptation of an earlier model and tradition of wisdom based on the thought and legacy of the sixth-century archon, legislator, and poet Solon. Solon is cited and/or quoted thirty-four times in Plato’s dialogues, and alluded to many more times. My study shows that these references and allusions have deeper meaning when contextualized within the reception of Solon in the classical period. For Plato, Solon is a rhetorically powerful figure in advancing the relatively new practice of philosophy in Athens. While Solon himself did not adequately establish justice in the city, his legacy provided a model upon which Platonic philosophy could improve. Chapter One surveys the passing references to Solon in the dialogues as an introduction to my chapters on the dialogues in which Solon is a very prominent figure, Timaeus- Critias, Republic, and Laws. Chapter Two examines Critias’ use of his ancestor Solon to establish his own philosophic credentials. Chapter Three suggests that Socrates re- appropriates the aims and themes of Solon’s political poetry for Socratic philosophy. Chapter Four suggests that Solon provides a legislative model which Plato reconstructs in the Laws for the philosopher to supplant the role of legislator in Greek thought.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCLUS and the ANCIENTS Steven K. Strange Emory
    PROCLUS AND THE ANCIENTS Steven K. Strange Emory University My title may be somewhat misleading. My subject will not be Pro- clus in general, but only his Parmenides Commentary, and I will only be concerned with those figures whom he calls in this commentary “the ancients” ( ? παλαι ), i.e., the older commentators on the dialogue, a group that certainly includes Porphyry, Amelius Gentilianus, and other early Neoplatonists, and perhaps Iamblichus, and some others whom we might suppose to be Middle Platonists, pre-Plotinian commentators. Who exactly is to be included in this category is, however, a some- what difficult and interesting question, which I wish to take up. I will examine the principal passages in which Proclus uses the expression ? παλαι in his commentary on the Parmenides,inorder,Ihope,topoint to some of the ways that they might be exploited to yield information about the earlier history of Parmenides-interpretation. I will be building throughout on the work of John Dillon in his notes and introductory material to his and Morrow’s translation of the Commentary,butIhope to be able to advance the discussion a little farther than he has done. There would be no difficulty, of course, if only Proclus had named the previous commentators whom he discusses, as he had done throughout his commentary on the Timaeus, which seems to have been among his earliest works. But the targets of his discussions in the Par- menides Commentary, in general, remain anonymous, their positions being introduced only by phrases like “some people say”, “others say”, and so forth: as Dillon argues in his Introduction,1 not naming names appears to have become Proclus’ standard practice in his later commentaries.
    [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]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48303-2 — the Moon in the Greek and Roman Imagination Karen Ní Mheallaigh Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48303-2 — The Moon in the Greek and Roman Imagination Karen ní Mheallaigh Index More Information Index Achilles’ shield. See Homer Callimachus, – Aëtius, – celestial bowls, – Aglaonice, – Cicero, Somnium Scipionis, –, , See Alcmaeon of Croton, , – selēnoskopia (or ‘view from Moon’) Alcman Cleomedes, , Partheneia (Maiden Songs), – cognitive estrangement. See selēnoskopia (view from Alexander of Abonouteichos, – Moon) amphiphōntes, Colin Webster, , – analogical drift, Corinna, – Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, , –, –, cup of Helios, – Cyrano de Bergerac, , n Anaximander of Miletus, – Anaximenes of Miletus, – Demetrius Triclinius, n, , – Ancient Greek calendar, See also parapēgmata Democritus of Abdera, –, Antiphanes of Berge, – Diogenes of Apollonia, antiphraxis, – dioptra. See Lucian, True Stories Antonius Diogenes, The incredible things beyond Thule earthshine, – and scholarly hoax, – Earthy Moon Theory (EMT), –, –, and the Arctic, – See Plutarch, De facie and the Moon, – problems/challenges, , – narrative complexity, – eclipse Apollo Noumēnios, lunar eclipse, – Apuleius mechanism of eclipse, – lunam despumari, – solar eclipse, , – Aristarchus of Samos, , Empedocles of Acragas, –, , – Aristotle Empedotimus, fire creatures on the Moon, – Endymiones, , – on nature of Moon, Ennius’ dream, – theory of elements, Epimenides of Crete, – Astraeus, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, astral travel. See soul projection Hermes. See selēnoskopia (or ‘view from astronomical observation, , See mountains Moon’) astronomy
    [Show full text]
  • B Philosophy (General) B
    B PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) B Philosophy (General) For general philosophical treatises and introductions to philosophy see BD10+ Periodicals. Serials 1.A1-.A3 Polyglot 1.A4-Z English and American 2 French and Belgian 3 German 4 Italian 5 Spanish and Portuguese 6 Russian and other Slavic 8.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z Societies 11 English and American 12 French and Belgian 13 German 14 Italian 15 Spanish and Portuguese 18.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z 20 Congresses Collected works (nonserial) 20.6 Several languages 20.8 Latin 21 English and American 22 French and Belgian 23 German 24 Italian 25 Spanish and Portuguese 26 Russian and other Slavic 28.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z 29 Addresses, essays, lectures Class here works by several authors or individual authors (31) Yearbooks see B1+ 35 Directories Dictionaries 40 International (Polyglot) 41 English and American 42 French and Belgian 43 German 44 Italian 45 Spanish and Portuguese 48.A-Z Other. By language, A-Z Terminology. Nomenclature 49 General works 50 Special topics, A-Z 51 Encyclopedias 1 B PHILOSOPHY (GENERAL) B Historiography 51.4 General works Biography of historians 51.6.A2 Collective 51.6.A3-Z Individual, A-Z 51.8 Pictorial works Study and teaching. Research Cf. BF77+ Psychology Cf. BJ66+ Ethics Cf. BJ66 Ethics 52 General works 52.3.A-Z By region or country, A-Z 52.5 Problems, exercises, examinations 52.65.A-Z By school, A-Z Communication of information 52.66 General works 52.67 Information services 52.68 Computer network resources Including the Internet 52.7 Authorship Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers*
    Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers* Pantelis Golitsis Introduction Harmonizing philosophical discourse, that is, the discourse which sets out to prove the compatibility of philosophical texts considered to contain incom- patible ideas, was not generally or permanently accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity – contrary to what is quite often assumed in schol- arly literature.1 In late sixth century Alexandria, for instance, Iamblichus is referred to by Elias as a bad example of a commentator who sympathized too much with Plato: ‘Iamblichus was so much devoted to Plato’, he says,2 ‘that he contended that Aristotle did not disagree with Plato on the doctrine of Forms’, a disagreement which was apparently too obvious to Elias. Elias was of course not the first to see a disagreement between the two philoso- phers. To illustrate this, let us first take a look at the closing paragraph of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: (1) These then are the results <of the account of Pythagoreans and Plato- nists> and perhaps yet more might be adduced. At any rate, the fact that these men experience many great difficulties in explaining the generation of numbers and can in no way make a system of them is like a proof that the mathematicals are not separable from the perceptibles, as some say, and that they are not the <first> principles.3 * I am grateful to Stephen Menn for helpful comments on a penultimate draft of this paper. 1 It is true that, to some extent and on some range of doctrines, all Neoplatonists harmonized Aristotle’s with Plato’s philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicius and Avicenna on the Nature of Body
    Simplicius and Avicenna on the Nature of Body Abraham D. Stone August 18, 1999 1 Introduction Ibn S¯ına, known to the Latin West as Avicenna, was a medieval Aristotelian— one of the greatest of all medieval Aristotelians. He lived in Persia from 980 to 1037, and wrote mostly in Arabic. Simplicius of Cilicia was a sixth cen- tury Neoplatonist; he is known mostly for his commentaries on Aristotle. Both of these men were, broadly speaking, part of the same philosophical tradition: the tradition of Neoplatonic or Neoplatonizing Aristotelianism. There is probably no direct historical connection between them, however, and anyway I will not try to demonstrate one. In this paper I will examine their closely related, but ultimately quite different, accounts of corporeity— of what it is to be a body—and in particular of the essential relationship between corporeity and materiality.1 The problem that both Simplicius and Avicenna face in this respect is as follows. There is a certain genus of substances which forms the subject matter of the science of physics. I will refer to the members of this genus as the physical substances. On the one hand, all and only these physical substances 1A longer and more technical version of this paper will appear, under the title “Simpli- cius and Avicenna on the Essential Corporeity of Material Substance,” in R. Wisnovsky, ed., Aspects of Avicenna (= Princeton Papers: Interdisciplinary Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 9, no. 2) (Princeton: Markus Wiener, 2000). I want to emphasize at the outset that this paper is about Simplicius and Avicenna, not Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens
    Trinity University Digital Commons @ Trinity Philosophy Faculty Research Philosophy Department 2014 Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens Damian Caluori Trinity University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/phil_faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Repository Citation Caluori, D. (2014). Rhetoric and Platonism in fifth-century Athens. In R. C. Fowler (Ed.), Plato in the third sophistic (pp. 57-72). De Gruyter. This Contribution to Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Research by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Damian Caluori (Trinity University) Rhetoric and Platonism in Fifth-Century Athens There are reasons to believe that relations between Platonism and rhetoric in Athens during the fifth century CE were rather close.Z Both were major pillars of pagan cul- ture, or paideia, and thus essential elements in the defense of paganism against in- creasingly powerful and repressive Christian opponents. It is easy to imagine that, under these circumstances, paganism was closing ranks and that philosophers and orators united in their efforts to save traditional ways and values. Although there is no doubt some truth to this view, a closer look reveals that the relations be- tween philosophy and rhetoric were rather more complicated. In what follows, I will discuss these relations with a view to the Platonist school of Athens. By “the Platon- ist school of Athens” I mean the Platonist school founded by Plutarch of Athens in the late fourth century CE, and reaching a famous end under the leadership of Dam- ascius in 529.X I will first survey the evidence for the attitudes towards rhetoric pre- vailing amongst the most important Athenian Platonists of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • May Plato's Academy Be Considered As the First Academic Institution?
    Center for Open Access in Science ▪ https://www.centerprode.com/ojsh.html Open Journal for Studies in History, 2019, 2(2), 35-42. ISSN (Online) 2620-066X ▪ https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojsh.0202.02035s _________________________________________________________________________ May Plato’s Academy be Considered as the First Academic Institution? Zhulduz Amangelidyevna Seitkasimova M. Auezov South Kazakhstan State University, KAZAKHSTAN Faculty of Pedagogy and Culture, Shymkent Received 8 November 2019 ▪ Revised 17 December 2019 ▪ Accepted 23 December 2019 Abstract Plato’s Academy is undoubtedly the first higher education institution in history, and in ancient Athens itself represents the most important educational institution. It constituted in the context of the universal development that took place in ancient Athens, in the 5th and 4th century BC, and it continued to work until the Byzantine Emperor Justinian forbade the work of all schools of philosophy (529 AD). This development, which is part of the so-called Golden Age of ancient Athens, represents the period of Greek history in which the foundations of Western civilization originated, as we know it today. Plato appears as one of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece, along with Socrates and Aristotle, to the first of whom appears as a student and to the second as a teacher. Philosophy in the true sense of the word was created in Plato’s era in ancient Athens (Russell, 1975), and Plato’s Academy, in which he, along with his students, talked about various philosophical topics through the Garden of Akademos, was the impetus for this development. There are also opinions that the development of philosophy after Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle is only of reproductive character when it comes to the basics of philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • PROCLUS on HESIOD's WORKS and DAYS Patrizia Marzillo
    PERFORMING AN ACADEMIC TALK: PROCLUS ON HESIOD’S WORKS AND DAYS Patrizia Marzillo Abstract From Socrates onwards orality was the favoured means of expression for those wholaterlovedtocallthemselves‘Platonic’.Theyusedtodiscussphilosophical issues in debates that turned into academic lectures and seminars. According to Plato’s original teaching, these talks should have not been “fixed” in written compositions, yet Plato himself put most of his doctrine into fictive “written dia- logues”.His followers intensified their connection with writing, above all for the purposes of teaching. On the one hand, they made notes on the lessons of their teachers; on the other, they enlarged their own talks in written compositions. Neoplatonists’ commentaries are often an amplification of their academic talks. The lessons held in the school of Athens or in Platonic circles coalesced into texts that mostly constitute Neoplatonic propaganda intended for the outside world. When Proclus directed the school in Athens, Plato and Aristotle were taught, but also theologian poets such as Homer, Orpheus, Hesiod. As the Suda reports, Proclus wrote commentaries on all of these poets, but the only onepreservedisthecommentaryonHesiod’sWorks and Days.Througha comparison of some passages from this commentary, I show how Proclus’ commentary on Hesiod is not only a good example of an oral lesson that has become a written commentary, but also, importantly, of a text that aimed at the diffusion of Neoplatonic ideas among an audience of non-adherents. As his biographer and disciple Marinus of Neapolis relates, the neo- Platonist Proclus was accustomed to write about lines a day.1 Besides being a very prolific author, he was also an indefatigable teacher since in addition to his writing he held several classes during the day and also gave evening talks.2 What I propose to show in this paper is the profound interaction between the oral communication in his school and the written performance of his commentaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016
    Revista Classica, v. 30, n. 2, p. 137-142, 2017 137 BONAZZI, Mauro; SCHORN, Stefan. Bios Philosophos: Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography. Turnhout: Brepols, 2016. 313p. ISBN 978-2-503-56546-0 Gustavo Laet Gomes* * Mestre em Filosofia Bernardo C. D. A. Vasconcelos** pela Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. guslaet@ gmail.com Bios Philosophos. Philosophy in Ancient Greek Biography (Brepols, 2016), organized by Mauro Bonazzi and Stefan Schorn, delivers a ** Mestre em Filosofia pela both deep and wide tour through the philosophical aspects of Greek Universidade Federal biographical production. On one hand, it does not concentrate only in de Minas Gerais. the later periods of Greek philosophy, when biographical production bernardovasconcelos abounded, but goes all the way back to the fourth century BCE, when @gmail.com biographical texts were fragmentary and mingled with other styles. On the other, it tries to unveil the philosophical motives in the works of authors who tend to be disregarded as historians, biographers, hagiographers or even as mere fans of the most prominent figures of their own schools. In our review, we will attempt to give a brief account of the ten articles that make up this volume, which, in turn, will hopefully provide an overview of the different connections between the biographies and biographers and their philosophical motives. Thomas Bénatouïl’s Pythagore chez Dicéarque: anectodes biographiques et critique de la philosophie contemplative (p. 11-36) proposes an inversion of the traditional interpretation regarding the testimony of Dicaearchus of Messana about the life of Pythagoras. Since antiquity, Dicaearchus’ reports tend to be seen as positive, because they present a Pythagoras devoid of mysticism and apparently more interested in practical matters.
    [Show full text]