DOCSLIB.ORG

ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS in BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS in BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller Linos G. BENAKIS Vahanian, G. (1965b, December 8). Swallowed Vahanian, G. (1966b). Theology and ‘The End UDC 1/14:17 up by Godlessness. The ChristianCen- of the Age of Religion’. (J. B. Metz, Linos G. BENAKIS tury, LXXXII(49), 1505-1507. Ed.) Concilium: Theology in the Age Vahanian, G. (1966a). No other God. New of Renewal, XVI, 99-110. ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS IN BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller. Abstract This paper argues that research in the primary sources must precede the investigation of Byzan- tine philosophy. Two points are to be considered, on the one hand, the gathering of texts, and, on the other hand, the study of texts in relation to their sources. Thus the external evidence as well as the internal evidence of texts should be examined. In this double regard, the manuscripts containing Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics are considered. Their authors are Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. Keywords: Byzantine philosophy, Aristotle’s Byzantine Commentators, Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. This paper is primarily technical in nature. b. The study of texts in relation to their It will argue that when one begins to examine a sources. Namely, the identification of less investigated area of the field of Byzantine sources – distinguishing between instan- Philosophy, research in the primary sources ces of mere borrowing and instances of a must still precede every interpretative act and more critical incorporation of such sour- critical approach. Here, research in the primary ces into Byzantine texts – the identifica- sources means: tion of original elements, of direct or in- a. The gathering of texts. This is not always direct influences, of tendencies in the use an easy task, although the publication in of source materials, etc. Here, the ever- recent decades of new critical editions of expanding secondary bibliography needs texts by Byzantine philosophers has made to be consulted with caution, since some it more feasible (Benakis, 1991). Older studies contain errors of interpretation editions of Byzantine philosophers, some which may be more or less obvious.2 of which have been reprinted, also remain 1 the treatise On Virtue can be found. useful, some unexpectedly so. 2 There is, for example, the case of the article by ⃰ In a short form published as Benakis, 2009 and Giocarinis, 1964, where Eustratios seems to be Benakis, 2013. a defender of the Platonic theory of ideas, 1 One such is the collection of texts by Nikeph- when in fact the opposite is true, as is evident oros Blemmydes edited by Dorotheos Voulis- from the texts cited. It is also inexcusable for mas and published in Leipzig in 1784, where A. Lloyd to speak of nominalism in Eustratios 66 67 67 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 Linos G. BENAKIS This paper will, therefore, necessarily Of even greater importance is an exa- consider both the external evidence and, as far mination of the ‘internal’ elements that consti- as possible, the internal evidence regarding tute this interest, so that one might then under- our texts. While its nature and methods remain stand the relation between our Byzantine au- to be justified, this paper will have served its thors and the political thinking of the state phi- purpose and satisfied its writer’s aims if it losophers of antiquity. The same point can ap- stimulates an interest among new scholars in ply to the Ethics, where the identification of conducting research and writing about this elements of Aristotle’s ‘moral’ teaching in the highly productive area of Greek philosophy, works of Byzantine philosophers might be con- one that has been somewhat neglected. I am sidered in relation to the presence of moral certain that they will find such research richly problems and issues within both academic rewarding, whether they engage in ‘technical’ teaching and within a Byzantine Lebensphilo- research work or a more broadly conceived sophie that was firmly embedded in Christian examination of the most significant problems dogma. of Byzantine philosophy. There are numerous Byzantine commen- As a starting point, one ‘external’ fact of taries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. particular importance to our topic is the large Among the earliest of these was that of Mi- number of manuscripts containing the Nicoma- chael of Ephesus (eleventh-twelfth century), chean Ethics which have been preserved from who can be found in the circle of philosophers the Byzantine period. There are approximately associated with Anna Komnene and who wrote 120 manuscripts, to which one might add 45 commentaries on book V and on books IX and manuscripts of the Major Ethics and 25 of the X of the Nicomachean Ethics.4 A first edition Eudemian Ethics. In order to put these numbers (by contemporary criteria) of these commen- into perspective I cite the corresponding num- taries appeared in Venice in 1541.5 We must bers of manuscripts of other key works by Aris- not overlook the fact that Michael of Ephesus totle. There are 160 manuscripts of the Catego- was an experienced commentator, with exten- ries from the Byzantine period, 140 of the De Politics in 1821 as the first volume of the col- interpretatione, 120 for the Prior Analytics, 120 lection. This was followed in 1822 by his pub- for the Physics, 60 for the Metaphysics, 60 for lication of the Nicomachean Ethics. He wrote the De caelo, and 40 for the Poetics. I have dis- the following in his prologue, claiming that b cussed the Politics elsewhere (Benakis, 1982 ). Ethics is a part of Politics: “both are one and It is, therefore, essential to consider these num- the same science, of which Ethics can be con- bers when considering the knowledge and inter- sidered the theoretical part, and Politics the est of the Byzantines in the moral- political ide- practical.” 4 as of Aristotle.3 Michael Ephesius, in: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (=CAG) Vols. XX and in the article cited in note 10, when he himself XXII, 3. concludes that Eustratios’ method may be de- 5 Aristotelis Stagiritae Moralia Nichomachia fined as a form of conceptualism! cum Eustratii, Aspasii, Michaelis Ephesii 3 See the testimony of Adamantius Korais, who, nonullorum aliorurn Graecorum explana- in his Hellenic Library published Aristotle’s tionibus, ed. B. B. Felicianus, Venetiis 1541. 68 WISDOM 2(9), 2017 68 Aristotelian Ethics in Byzantium This paper will, therefore, necessarily Of even greater importance is an exa- sive commentaries on Aristotle’s work: inclu- Eustratios’ Aristotelian commentaries were consider both the external evidence and, as far mination of the ‘internal’ elements that consti- ding books V–VIII of the Metaphysics, the the most interesting of any of those produced as possible, the internal evidence regarding tute this interest, so that one might then under- Parva Naturalia, the Sophistici Elenchi, the De by a Byzantine philosopher, as the subject of our texts. While its nature and methods remain stand the relation between our Byzantine au- partibus and the De motu animalium, which, his discussion was not limited to the philoso- to be justified, this paper will have served its thors and the political thinking of the state phi- fortunately, were included in the publishing pher’s style or definitions, but rather addres- purpose and satisfied its writer’s aims if it losophers of antiquity. The same point can ap- endeavor of the Prussian Academy.6 The com- sed the philosopher’s views and his teachings. stimulates an interest among new scholars in ply to the Ethics, where the identification of mentaries by Michael of Ephesus on Physics, Indeed, Eustratios appears to have been a conducting research and writing about this elements of Aristotle’s ‘moral’ teaching in the De caelo and the Rhetoric have not been pre- competent philosopher in the tradition of Mi- highly productive area of Greek philosophy, works of Byzantine philosophers might be con- served. For details of his knowledge and treat- chael Psellos and John Italos, whose student one that has been somewhat neglected. I am sidered in relation to the presence of moral ment of the Politics see my article mentioned he was. One finds within his work a combina- certain that they will find such research richly problems and issues within both academic above. In addition, the recent secondary litera- tion of Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism. rewarding, whether they engage in ‘technical’ teaching and within a Byzantine Lebensphilo- ture on Michael is reliable. This is evident in his resolution of the problem research work or a more broadly conceived sophie that was firmly embedded in Christian In the same period, Eustratios of Nicaea of general concepts (the universalia), in which examination of the most significant problems dogma. (c. 1050 – c. 1120) composed commentaries on resolution Lloyd also finds that Eustratios has of Byzantine philosophy. There are numerous Byzantine commen- books I and VI of the Nicomachean Ethics.7 resolved the problem of conceptual realism As a starting point, one ‘external’ fact of taries on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Eustratios’s commentaries were also included (conceptualism) that can be found in the Al- particular importance to our topic is the large Among the earliest of these was that of Mi- in the 1541 Venetian edition. Parts of them exandrian commentators, i.e. those of the number of manuscripts containing the Nicoma- chael of Ephesus (eleventh-twelfth century), were also, surprisingly, included in E. Par- school of Ammonius and thence of all Byzan- chean Ethics which have been preserved from who can be found in the circle of philosophers giter’s 1745 London edition entitled Aristotle tine scholars (see Benakis, 1978-1979).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St. Michael and Attis
    St. Michael and Attis Cyril MANGO Δελτίον XAE 12 (1984), Περίοδος Δ'. Στην εκατονταετηρίδα της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (1884-1984)• Σελ. 39-62 ΑΘΗΝΑ 1986 ST. MICHAEL AND ATTIS Twenty years ago, when I was working on the apse mosaics of St. Sophia at Constantinople, I had ample opportunity to contemplate what is surely one of the most beautiful works of Byzantine art, I mean the image of the archangel Gabriel, who stands next to the enthroned Theotokos (Fig. 1). Gabriel is dressed in court costume; indeed, one can affirm that his costume is imperial, since he is wearing red buskins and holding a globe, the symbol of universal dominion. Yet neither the Bible nor orthodox doctrine as defined by the Fathers provides any justification for portraying an archangel in this guise; no matter how great was his dignity in heaven, he remained a minister and a messenger1. Only God could be described as the equivalent of the emperor. How was it then that Byzantine art, which showed extreme reluctance to give to Christ, the pambasileus, any visible attributes of royalty other than the throne, granted these very attributes to archangels, who had no claim to them? An enquiry I undertook at the time (and left unpublished) suggested the following conclusions: 1. The Byzantines themselves, I mean the medieval Byzantines, could offer no reasonable explanation of the iconography of archangels and seemed to be unaware of its meaning. On the subject of the globe I found only two texts. One was an unedited opuscule by Michael Psellos, who, quite absurdly, considered it to denote the angels' rapidity of movement; "for", he says, "the sphere is such an object that, touching as it does only a tiny portion of the ground, is able in less than an instant to travel in any direction"2.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Psellos and Byzantine Astrology in the Eleventh Century, Culture and Cosmos , Vol
    CULTURE AND COSMOS A Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy Vol. 13 no. 1, Spring/Summer 2009 Published by Culture and Cosmos and the Sophia Centre Press, in partnership with the University of Wales Trinity Saint David, in association with the Sophia Centre for the Study of Cosmology in Culture, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Faculty of Humanities and the Performing Arts Lampeter, Ceredigion, Wales, SA48 7ED, UK. www.cultureandcosmos.org Cite this paper as: Andrew Vladimirou, Michael Psellos and Byzantine Astrology in the Eleventh Century, Culture and Cosmos , Vol. 13 no 1, Spring/Summer 2009, pp. 24-61. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue card for this book is available from the British Library All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Publishers. ISSN 1368-6534 Printed in Great Britain by Lightning Source Copyright 2018 Culture and Cosmos All rights reserved Michael Psellos and Byzantine Astrology in the Eleventh Century ________________________________________________________________ Andrew Vladimirou Abstract. The following work uses the writing of one of the most outstanding personalities of the Byzantine Empire, Michael Psellos (1018–1078?), as a conduit into the world of Byzantine astrology. The focus of the article is his celebrated chronicle, The Chronographia, which documents his life and experiences as an influential courtier at the Byzantine court in the eleventh century. Psellos was at the forefront of political life in the Empire and its fluctuating fortunes but somehow managed to combine these duties with a prodigious scholarly vocation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23
    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (Ca
    Conversion and Empire: Byzantine Missionaries, Foreign Rulers, and Christian Narratives (ca. 300-900) by Alexander Borislavov Angelov A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (History) in The University of Michigan 2011 Doctoral Committee: Professor John V.A. Fine, Jr., Chair Professor Emeritus H. Don Cameron Professor Paul Christopher Johnson Professor Raymond H. Van Dam Associate Professor Diane Owen Hughes © Alexander Borislavov Angelov 2011 To my mother Irina with all my love and gratitude ii Acknowledgements To put in words deepest feelings of gratitude to so many people and for so many things is to reflect on various encounters and influences. In a sense, it is to sketch out a singular narrative but of many personal “conversions.” So now, being here, I am looking back, and it all seems so clear and obvious. But, it is the historian in me that realizes best the numerous situations, emotions, and dilemmas that brought me where I am. I feel so profoundly thankful for a journey that even I, obsessed with planning, could not have fully anticipated. In a final analysis, as my dissertation grew so did I, but neither could have become better without the presence of the people or the institutions that I feel so fortunate to be able to acknowledge here. At the University of Michigan, I first thank my mentor John Fine for his tremendous academic support over the years, for his friendship always present when most needed, and for best illustrating to me how true knowledge does in fact produce better humanity.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul
    7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul Roger Crisp n the recent revival of interest in Aristotelian ethics, relatively little attention has been paid to the virtue of greatness of soul (megalopsuchia). This is partly Ibecause of the focus on the more structurally central concepts of Aristotle’s theory, in particular happiness (eudaimonia) and virtue (aret¯e). But in fact a study of greatness of soul can reveal important insights into the overall shape of Aristotelian ethics, including the place of external goods and luck in the virtuous life, and the significance of “the noble” (to kalon). Further, Aristotle describes the great-souled person in more detail than any other, and calls greatness of soul a “sort of crown of the virtues” (NE IV.3.1124a1–2). Many have found aspects of the portrait of the great-souled person in the Nicomachean Ethics repellent or absurd, but that is no good reason for the student of Aristotle to shy away from it. In this chapter, I shall elucidate Aristotle’s account of greatness of soul, addressing some puzzles internal to that account and bringing out its place in, and implications for, the ethics of Aristotle and of those modern writers influenced by him. Greatness of Soul as a Virtue To understand greatness of soul as an Aristotelian virtue requires first understand- ing Aristotle’s conception of virtue itself. Aristotle distinguishes virtues into two classes – intellectual virtues and virtues of character – corresponding to distinct aspects of the human soul (NE I.13). Greatness of soul is a virtue of character, though, like all such virtues, it requires its possessor to have the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom (phron¯esis; NE VI.13).
    [Show full text]
  • Byzantine Narratives of Gender Identity Eamon H.R
    Introduction ix Roger Scott xv Ann Moffatt (Australian National University) List of 11 lustrations xix KEYNOTE PAPERS Novelisation in Byzantium: Narrative after the Revival of 1 Fiction Margaret Mullett (The Queen 's University Belfast) Narrating Justinian: From Malalas to Manasses 29 Roger Scott (University of Melbourne) NARRATIVE IN HISTORIANS, CHRONICLES & FICTION To Narrate the Events of the Past: On Byzantine 47 Historians, and Historians on Byzantium Ingela Nilsson (Uppsala University) Tradition and Originality in Photius' Historical Reading 59 Brian Crake (Sydney) Narrating the Trials and Death in Exile of Pope Martin I 71 and Maxim us the Confessor Bronwen Neil (Australian Catholic University) The Use of Metaphor in Michael Psellos' Chronographia 84 Elizabeth McCartney (University of Melbourne) War and Peace in the Alexiad 92 Penelope Buckley (University of Melbourne) Moralising History: the Synopsis Historiarum of John 110 Skylitzes Theoni Sklavos (University of Melbourne) The Representation of Augustae in John Skylitzes' 120 Synopsis Historiarum Emma Strugnell (University of Melbourne) The Madrid Skylitzes as an Audio-Visual Experiment 137 John Burke (University of Melbourne) The Goths and the Bees in Jordanes: A Narrative of No 149 Return Andrew Gillett (Macquarie University) From 'Fallen Woman' to Theotokos: Music, Women's 164 Voices and Byzantine Narratives of Gender Identity Eamon H.R. Kelly (St Cross College, Oxford) How the Entertaining Tale of Quadrupeds became a Tale: 182 Grafting Narrative Nick Nicholas (University of
    [Show full text]
  • A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius
    A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius Michele Trizio PART FROM a single Delphic inscription (FD III.4 103), the testimonia of the life and work of second-century AMiddle Platonist Gaius fall into two classes.1 The first includes first-hand observations of later philosophers up to Proclus: Porphyry, for instance, reports that Gaius was one of several authors read regularly by Plotinus’ entourage.2 Galen tells us that he followed the classes of two of Gaius’ pupils in Pergamum and Smyrna respectively.3 As to Proclus, he twice mentions Gaius, among other Platonists, in his commentaries on the Republic and the Timaeus.4 The second class of testimonia includes statements concerning Gaius’ scholarship on Plato in three important Greek MSS. The first of these, Paris.gr. 1962, is a ninth-century MS. of the so-called ‘philosophical collection’, which, among others entries, contains a pinax at f. 146v men- tioning ᾿Αλβίνου τῶν Γαίου σχολῶν ὑποτυπώσεων πλατωνικῶν δογµάτων. That is to say, Albinus’ edition of Gaius’ scholia on 1 On Gaius and the related bibliography see J. Whittaker, “Gaius,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire de philosophes antiques III (Paris 2000) 437–440. All testimonia on Gaius are collected and discussed with reference to previous literature in A. Gioè, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.c. (Naples 2002). 2 V.Plot. 14, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera I (Leiden 1951) 19.10–14. 3 De propriorum animi 41, ed. W. de Boer (CMG V.4.1.1, Leipzig 1937); Libr.propr. 2.1, ed. V. Boudon-Millot (Paris 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • International Workshop 10–11 June 2021, 16.00–19.00 (Gmt+1)
    TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE — TRANSFER OF IDEAS — TRANSFER OF EXPERIENCES LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF GREEK TEXTS FROM THE 11TH TO THE 13TH CENTURY INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 10–11 JUNE 2021, 16.00–19.00 (GMT+1) Organizers: Paraskevi Toma (University of Münster) Péter Bara (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) Realizing the fact that there are different factors that influence translations, we set the dynamics of linguistic and cultural exchange from Greek into Latin as the focus of our workshop. Even though the knowledge of Latin in Byzantium dropped notably after the sixth century, it was surrounded by Latin-speaking territories, while a multilingual community continued to exist in Italy. Furthermore, the Crusades strengthened the ties between the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, a fact that unavoidably entailed knowledge transfer from Greek into Latin. The workshop will examine translators as mediators of knowledge and translated texts as sources of direct as well as indirect/intertextual knowledge. Rich material can be found, for example, in the fields of theology, medicine, and law. As regards translators, we will discuss their educational background and literacy, their networks and social status, along with their (in many cases) multicultural identity. Regarding translated texts, we will explore their literary genre as part of contemporary political or religious dialogue, identify Greek linguistic variants that were adapted by the Latin language, and finally consider the impact of translators themselves on their translations. Further questions to be discussed during the workshop are: v Who commissioned translations and for what purpose? v Did the translators follow a particular translation technique or school? v What role did these persons play as interpreters and as translators? v How have translations of legal and religious texts been used in multilingual environments? v Did translations/interpretations affect political or religious decisions or even cause controversies? * Add MS 47674 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nephew of Michael Cerularios , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:1 (1981:Spring) P.89
    SNIPES, KENNETH, A Letter of Michael Psellus to Constantine the Nephew of Michael Cerularios , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 22:1 (1981:Spring) p.89 A Letter of Michael Psellos to Constantine the Nephew of Michael Cerularios Kenneth Snipes N AN ARTICLE listing the unpublished letters of Michael Psellos, I Jean Darrouzes noted that a small group of six letters attrib­ uted to Psellos is found in three manuscripts: Athas, Mov~ Meyiar17c; Aavpac; 1721 (M 30) fols. 86-98; Bucharest, Academia Republicii Socialiste Romania 737 (587) fols. 214-49; and Cam­ bridge, Trinity College 1485 (0.10.33) fols. 192-203v. 1 In addi­ tion to the three manuscripts known to Darrouzes, these six letters are found also in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Supplement grec 1334 fols. 108-23v.2 Three of the six (the first, fourth, and sixth) were correctly identified by Darrouzes as letters already published by Sathas or Kurtz-Drexl. 3 Darrouzes, followed by Paul Canart in a later, more comprehensive list of the unpublished letters of Psellos, 4 believed that the other three letters (the second, third, and fifth) had not yet been published. In the case of the third and fifth letters, however, both scholars have been misled by slight differ­ ences between the word order of their incipits and the incipits of letters 1 and 84 in the large collection of Psellos' letters edited by Sathas. 5 The fifth letter, for example, begins 'Eyw be qJf.11'/V, lepd Kai rpzn6(}1Jre Kerpa).lj, rather than 'Eyw tliv, w lepa Kai rpzn6()17re Kerpa).,~ as in the version in Parisinus gr.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael of Ephesus' Comments on Aristotle's De Memoria
    NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Michael of Ephesus’ comments on Aristotle’s De memoria Graduate Programme in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Daphne Argyri Advisor: Katerina Ierodiakonou Athens 2016 ΔΙΠΛΩΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑ Ονοματεπώνυμο: Δάφνη Αργύρη Μεταπτυχιακό πρόγραμμα: Ιστορία και Φιλοσοφία των Επιστημών και της Τεχνολογίας (ΙΦΕΤ) Α.Μ.: 004/13 Υπεύθυνη καθηγήτρια: Κατερίνα Ιεροδιακόνου Αναγνώστες: Βασίλης Καρασμάνης Παύλος Καλλιγάς i Τα σχόλια του Μιχαήλ Εφέσιου στο Περί μνήμης του Αριστοτέλη Στην πραγματεία του Περί μνήμης και αναμνήσεως ο Αριστοτέλης παρουσιάζει τη μνήμη ως βασικό στοιχείο της γνωστικής διαδικασίας, πολύ συγγενές με την αντίληψη. Πρόκειται για μια παθητική κατάσταση (ἕξις/πάθος, 449b25), δηλαδή για μια αποθήκη της ψυχής γεμάτη με εικόνες του παρελθόντος, που σε αντίθεση και συνέχεια του Πλάτωνα διακρίνεται εμφατικά από την σαφώς ενεργητική διαδικασία της ανάμνησης. Η ανάμνηση συνίσταται στη δυνατότητα ανάκλησης στο παρόν, εκουσίως ή ακουσίως, των εικόνων του παρελθόντος και ανήκει, σαν συλλογισμός (οἷον συλλογισμός τις, 453a10), στο μέρος της ψυχής που συνδέεται με την λογική ικανότητα του ανθρώπου. Το υπόμνημα του Μιχαήλ Εφέσιου (12ος αι. μ.Χ.) στο παραπάνω έργο του Αριστοτέλη (Σχόλια εἰς τὸ Περὶ μνήμης καὶ ἀναμνήσεως, 1-41) είναι το μόνο υπόμνημα σε αυτό που σώζεται ως τις μέρες μας και αποτελεί πολύ σημαντική πηγή για την ιστορία των δύο αυτών εννοιών. Οι οξυδερκείς παρατηρήσεις και τα σχόλια του Μιχαήλ φαίνεται κατ΄αρχάς πως έχουν επηρεαστεί από τις διάφορες σχολές σκέψης με τις οποίες ήταν εξοικειωμένος, αλλά παράλληλα εκφράζουν ξεκάθαρα και τις προσωπικές του αντιλήψεις πάνω στο θέμα. Συγκεκριμένα, φανερώνεται μια συγκροτημένη θεώρηση της μνήμης και της ανάμνησης καθώς και του τρόπου με τον οποίο σχετίζονται και αλληλεπιδρούν στο πλαίσιο μιας συστηματικής γνωστικής θεωρίας.
    [Show full text]
  • Trans. Greek Thot Handout
    11/14/19 TRANSMISSION OF GREEK THOUGHT TO THE WEST PLATO & NEOPLATONISM Chalcidius (late 3rd-early 4th cent. Christian exegete): incomplete translation & commentary of Timeaus Henricus Aristippus in Sicily (12th c.): translated the Meno and Phaedo Leonardo Bruni (c. 1370-1444/Florence) translated a selection of Plato’s dialogues (from Greek to Latin). Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499/Florence): 1st complete translation into Latin of Plato’s works (publ. 1496), and translation of Plotinus’s Enneads into Latin (1492). Neoplatonic thought was transmitted in the following: (a) Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (written 524, in prison) (b) Macrobius’ Commentary on Cicero’s Dream of Scipio (written c. 400 CE). (c) Pseudo-Dionysius. A collection of writings attributed to Dionysius the Aeropagite (see Acts 17:34), but 19th century scholarship determined to be written c. 500 by a disciple of Proclus, held considerable authority throughout the middle ages and was a Christian Neoplatonism. (d) Theologica Aristotelis: this summary of Books 4-6 of Plotinus’s Enneads had been wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century) (e) Liber de Causis: this work based on Proclus’s Elements of Theology was wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century). ARISTOTLE Victorinus (4th century): Latin translations of Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione, as well as of Porphyry’s Isagoge. Boethius (470-524/Padua?): translated the entire Organon and wrote commentaries on all but the Posterior Analytics), as well as a translation of Porphyry’s introduction (Isagoge) to the Categories, but only De Interp. and Categories were readily available until 12th century. James of Venice (c.1128): translated Posterior Analytics; with the rediscovery of other translations by Boethius, this completed the Organon.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Phronãªsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, And
    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Political Science Faculty Research and Scholarship Political Science 2013 Aristotelian Phronêsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice Stephen Salkever Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs Part of the Political Science Commons Citation Salkever, Stephen, "Aristotelian Phronêsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice" (2013). Political Science Faculty Research and Scholarship. Paper 25. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs/25 This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs/25 For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT—NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CITATION. Aristotelian Phronêsis , the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice Stephen Salkever Bryn Mawr College August, 2013 (A version of this paper was presented at a conference on Practical Wisdom and Globalizing Practice held in November 2012 at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. For questions and comments I thank my fellow conferees and especially the conference organizer, Prof. Xu Changfu of the SYSU Philosophy Department.) In this paper, I will outline some fundamental differences between the evaluative and explanatory language of Aristotelian practical reason based on his empirical psychological
    [Show full text]