DOCSLIB.ORG

Cicero's Philosophical Position in Academica and De Finibus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cicero's Philosophical Position in Academica and De Finibus Cicero’s Philosophical Position in Academica and De Finibus Submitted by Hoyoung Yang to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Classics in November 2013 I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. 1 Hoyoung Yang University of Exeter Cicero’s Philosophical Position in Academica and De Finibus This thesis aims to examine the extent of consistency between Cicero’s epistemological position in Academica and his method of approaching ethics in De Finibus. I consider whether in both works he expresses a radically sceptical view or a more moderate one. I suggest that Cicero’s scepticism is best understood when we understand his dialectical inquiry as being, in both works, a positive procedure designed to find the most persuasive view by arguing for and against every opinion. In Chapter 1, I examine Cicero’s mode of writing in his later philosophical dialogues, distinguishing two levels of ‘Cicero’ (that is, Cicero the author and the persona in the dialogues). In Chapter 2, I examine how Cicero himself understands the key principles of scepticism (akatalēpsia and epochē) and whether his epistemological position in Academica is a consistent one. Chapters 3 and 4 form a bridge between the epistemological debate in Academica and the ethical debate in De Finibus by examining in detail two applications by Cicero of Carneades’ ethical division. In Chapter 3, I discuss the original philosophical context of Carneades’ division, and consider how Cicero applies it to the epistemological debate at Ac. 2.129-41. In Chapter 4, I discuss Cicero’s application of this division to ethical debate at Fin. 2.34-44 with reference to Cicero’s criticism of Epicurean ethics. Chapter 5 and 6 are concerned with Cicero’s attitude towards two competing (and more plausible) ethical theories, that is, the Stoic and Antiochean theories. By playing two roles (i.e. as the persona taking one side of the debate in each dialogue and as the author distancing himself from both of them), Cicero writes in a way that is consistent with his (moderate) Academic scepticism. He aims not only to free his readers from their dogmatic obstinacy, but also to help them to find out for themselves the most persuasive view on each philosophical issue. 2 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..... 5 Chapter 1 Cicero’s Philosophical Project 1.1 Consistency of Cicero’s Philosophical Position ……………………. 9 1.2 Cicero’s Dialogues …………………………………………………... 15 1.3 Radical vs. Moderate Scepticism ..………………………………… 21 Chapter 2 Consistency of Cicero’s Position in Academica ……………... 24 2.1 Dialectical Interpretation of Two Academic Principles …………... 25 2.2 Cicero’s Approval of Akatalēpsia .………………………………… 34 2.3 Cicero and the Wise Man …………………………………………... 42 2.4 Assessment of the Persuasive Impression ……………………….. 51 2.5 Persuasive Impression vs. Persuasive Opinion ………………….. 54 Chapter 3 Carneades’ Division in Lucullus ………………………………… 59 3.1 Form and Purpose of Carneades’ Division ……………………….. 61 3.1.1 Carneades’ Anti-Stoic Argument …………………………………... 64 3.1.2 Carneades’ Sceptical Argument ………………………………….... 66 3.2 Sceptical Use of Carneades’ Division at Ac. 2.129-41 ………….. 70 3.2.1 Broader Context of Ac. 2.129-41 ………………………………….. 72 3.3 Carneades’ Division at Ac. 2.129-31 in Relation to Ethical Debate ………………………………………………………………………………………… 78 Chapter 4 Cicero’s Criticism of Epicurean Ethics in Fin. 1-2 …………… 83 4.1 Positive Use of Carneades’ Division in De Finibus …………….... 84 4.2 Structure of Books 1 and 2 …………………………………………. 88 4.3 Torquatus’ Account of Epicurean Ethics ………………………….. 93 4.4 Epicurean Dilemma …………………………………………………. 97 4.5 Virtues Are Sought for Their Own Sake …………………………. 101 4.6 Cicero’s Positive Use of Carneades’ Division ……………………104 3 4.6.1 Primary Motivation …………………………………………………..106 4.6.2 Virtue ………………………………………………………………….111 4.6.3 Persuasive Views in Carneades’ Division ………………………..113 Chapter 5 Cicero’s Criticism of Stoic System in Fin. 3-4……………….. 115 5.1 Structure of the Second Dialogue …………………………………116 5.1.1 Cato’s Speech in Book 3 ………………………………………….. 117 5.1.2 Cicero’s Speech in Book 4 ………………………………………... 122 5.2 The Academic Tradition and Zeno’s Disagreement ……………..126 5.2 The Systematic Character of Stoic Ethics ………………………..131 5.4 Stoic Dilemma ……………………………………………………… 135 5.4.1 Question about Stoic Developmental Account …………………. 136 5.4.2 Questions about the ‘Consequences’ of the Stoic Ethics ………139 Chapter 6 Cicero’s Criticism of Antiochean Ethics in Fin. 5 ………….. 146 6.1 Piso’s Account of Antiochean Ethics at Fin. 5.24-72 ……………148 6.2 Cicero’s Criticism of the Consistency of Antiochean Ethics …….153 6.3 Antiochean Reading of De Finibus ………………………………..159 6.4 Comparison between Antiochus and the Stoics in Book 5 ……. 162 6.5 Antiochean Dilemma ………………………………………………..164 6.6 Test of Persuasiveness in De Finibus …………………………….168 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………176 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………..179 4 Introduction Although Cicero was highly regarded in the Renaissance and Enlightenment, his reputation declined in the mid-nineteenth century. He was thought to be neither original nor authoritative and readers turned back increasingly to Plato and Aristotle as sources for ancient philosophy. In 1856, for example, Theodore Mommsen criticized Cicero for lack of originality, and treated him as merely an inaccurate copier or compiler of Greek sources. However, ever since the general collapse of his reputation, some scholars have attempted to reconstruct his reputation as a philosopher. The assessment of his philosophical significance has been gradually changing in recent decades, as part of the general upsurge of interest in Hellenistic, post-Hellenistic and later ancient philosophy. Few scholars would now dismiss him as merely an incompetent philosophical thinker. As a result, his philosophical writings are now regarded as worth reading not only as sources for the views of the main Hellenistic schools in each branch of philosophy, but also as documents with their own intellectual interest. However, while Cicero’s philosophical significance has been recognised from various perspectives, questions can still raise about the extent to which he is a serious philosopher. First, he does not seem to have made any innovative contribution to the progress of philosophical thought as regards new or original ideas. Most of the philosophical material which he uses in his works appears to have been adopted or borrowed from earlier thinkers. His methods are, in large measure, common to ancient philosophical dialectic and are, indeed, based especially on writings by Academics; and he himself attributes his own dialectical method to the Academic tradition beginning from Socrates. There seems to be little room for finding Cicero’s originality in the area of philosophical ideas or methods. Secondly, personal interest must have been a dominating factor in shaping Cicero’s philosophical position. Cicero’s affiliation to the New Academy sometimes appears to be a choice for some practical purposes (such as conveniently presenting the views of various philosophical schools for the 5 purpose of accomplishing his educational purpose) rather than being the consequence of his own serious philosophical considerations. Whenever he expresses his intention to raise the intellectual and moral level of the Roman people by introducing Greek philosophy to them, his primary concern appears to be personal glory, as we will see. He was, essentially, an orator and a politician, not a professional philosopher. Also, the impression that subjective elements dominated his philosophical position has often been reinforced by the general image of Cicero as a person who was notorious for sentimentality in his private life and wavering in public affairs. This image depicts him as a liberal, who listens to both sides and then does nothing. If we highlight these personal and emotional aspects of Cicero’s thought and character, we might think that he was not a serious philosopher. Finally, even if it is granted that Cicero was a serious thinker, it is not always easy to specify his philosophical position, which appears to vacillate between radical scepticism (which is characterized by endorsement of universal suspension of judgement) and a more moderate one (which allows for assent to persuasive view). On the one hand, his dialogues show a strongly sceptical mode of presentation: any given view is refuted by the opponent (often by Cicero himself); and the consequent equipollence of opposing views appears to end in suspension of judgment on each topic. On the other hand, Cicero sometimes seems to adopt another strategy, especially concerning ethical subjects: by assessing all available views, he intends to find the most persuasive one. Thus we may wonder whether and how it is consistent for his generally sceptical stance to be reconciled with his inclination toward certain (more persuasive) views. In my thesis, I will examine Cicero’s philosophical position in Academica and De Finibus, mainly focusing on this last point. I hope that, through illuminating this point, some light may be thrown also on the first two points. In Chapters 2 and 3, I will discuss Academica, which includes various debates which occurred at various stages of the history of the New Academy spanning more than two centuries. Here Cicero presents a series of philosophical discussions, not only between Stoicism and the New Academy, but also among the New Academics themselves. In this light, Cicero’s philosophical position presented in Academica may include distinct philosophical insights from a variety of philosophers. 6 We see some evidence in Academica pointing to the conclusion that Cicero supports radical rather than moderate scepticism. The position that Cicero’s persona appears to advocate in this work is the Clitomachean interpretation of Carneades, that is, radical scepticism.1 Cicero seems to construe ‘persuasive’ views as beliefs which one should follow in action, but to which one was not committed rationally.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Augustine on Knowledge
    Augustine on Knowledge Divine Illumination as an Argument Against Scepticism ANITA VAN DER BOS RMA: RELIGION & CULTURE Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Research Master Thesis s2217473, April 2017 FIRST SUPERVISOR: dr. M. Van Dijk SECOND SUPERVISOR: dr. dr. F.L. Roig Lanzillotta 1 2 Content Augustine on Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4 Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 The life of Saint Augustine ................................................................................................................... 9 The influence of the Contra Academicos .......................................................................................... 13 Note on the quotations ........................................................................................................................ 14 1. Scepticism ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS for POLITICAL ENDS Cicero and the State
    WERNER A. KRENKEL SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS FOR POLITICAL ENDS Cicero and the state - that means also: Cicero and down-to-earth politics The history of sexual allegations begins with Timarchos, but it reached its peak at the end of the Roman Republic. It is a bit hard for us to imagine the political impact of intentionally spread rumors and loudly proclaimed allegations. But it is also remarkable to see with what ease someone took recourse to such mean stratagems if he had run out of legal and legalistic arguments. Suetonius (Claudius 15, 4) relates a story that can best illustrate the proceedings: "It is a well known fact that, when a Roman knight was falsely accused of unnatural offenses against women (obscaenitatis in feminas) - the charge had been mischievously framed up by his enemies who could not bring him down by other means (ab impotentibus inimicis conjicto crimine) - and when he saw that Claudius was admitting the evidence of common prostitutes, this Roman knight hurled a stylus and a set of wax tablets in Claudius' face". The Roman knight could not prevail over the allegations: he was in a no- win situation. A second example tells more about the terrifying consequences of such intentionally circulated rumors, of such allegations. It is again Suetonius (Iulius 20, 4) who has the story: "Lucius Lucullus (117-56, cos. 74 B.C.) went a little too far in opposing Caesar's policies, whereupon Caesar so ter- rified him by threatening to spread foul allegations (tantum calumniarum metum iniecit) that Lucullus fell on his knees and begged Caesar's pardon".
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Arcesilaus and Carneades
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP/552750/WORKINGFOLDER/BCP/9780521874762C03.3D 58 [58–80] 24.9.2009 7:15AM harald thorsrud 3 Arcesilaus and Carneades Arcesilaus initiated a sceptical phase in the Academy after taking over in c. 268 BCE. He was motivated in part by an innovative reading of Plato’s dialogues. Where his predecessors found positive doctrines to be systematically developed, he found a dialectical method of arguing and the sceptical view that nothing can be known (akatalêpsia, De Or. 3.67,seeDL4.28, 4.32). He also advanced this conclusion in opposition to the ambitious system of the Stoics, claiming further that the appropriate response to the pervasive uncertainty generated by his method is the suspension of judgement (epochê). Arcesilaus’ dialectical method was practiced without significant modification in the Academy until Carneades, who became head sometime before 155 BCE.1 Carneades both continued and strength- ened Arcesilaus’ method (ND 1.11, Acad. 2.16, see also Acad. 1.46, and Eusebius, Praep. evang. 14.7.15). Sextus marks the change by referring to Plato’s Academy as Old, Arcesilaus’ as Middle, and Carneades’ as New (PH 1.220). Since the main interpretative issues regarding both Arcesilaus and Carneades depend on the concepts of akatalêpsia and epochê,we must try to determine what they mean, how they are related, and what attitude the Academics take towards them – i.e. in what sense, if any, are these their sceptical doctrines? iarcesilaus The view that Arcesilaus derived from Plato’s dialogues might have taken one of two very different forms. He might have discovered some arguments that show knowledge is not possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato, Philo, and the Author of Hebrews
    Plato, Philo, and the Author of Hebrews BY JAMES H. BURTNESS INCE the first centuries of the Christian church, there have been serious ques­ S tions concerning the origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is primarily to the modern period, however, that we owe the view that the author of this epistle was deeply influenced by Platone idealism and by the philosophy of the Alexandrian School, particularly the writings of Philo. Hugo Grotius was perhaps the first, in 1644, to point out the close connection between Philo and Hebrews 4:10. In 1750, Carpzov published a volume of Sacrae Exercitationes in S. Paulli Epistolam ad Hebraeos ex Philone Alexandrine. J. J. Wettstein, in his Novum Testamentum Graecum of 1752, also pointed out these parallels. The rationalistic critics of the nineteenth century saw Alexandrianism written all over the epistle. Baur regarded it as a Judeo-Christian product inter­ mixed with Paulinism and spiritualized by an Alexandrian mentality. Ménégoz, in his La Theologie de L'Epitre aux Hébreux of 1894, concluded that the author was a Philonian converted to Christianity. At the end of the last century the de­ pendence of the epistle upon the religious philosophy of Philo was considered to be a secured result of literary criticism. Typical of this period are the following statements by Pfleiderer and von Soden: The Hellenistic basis of the Epistle to the Hebrews, its dependence in thought and word upon the Book of Wisdom, and especially upon Philo, is so obvious that there is not the smallest room for doubt upon the matter.1 It marks the definite entrance of Alexandrianism into the sphere of Christianity.
    [Show full text]
  • INGO GILDENHARD Cicero, Philippic 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119 Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary CICERO, PHILIPPIC 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119
    INGO GILDENHARD Cicero, Philippic 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119 Latin text, study aids with vocabulary, and commentary CICERO, PHILIPPIC 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119 Cicero, Philippic 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119 Latin text, study aids with vocabulary, and commentary Ingo Gildenhard https://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2018 Ingo Gildenhard The text of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the text; to adapt the text and to make commercial use of the text providing attribution is made to the author(s), but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work. Attribution should include the following information: Ingo Gildenhard, Cicero, Philippic 2, 44–50, 78–92, 100–119. Latin Text, Study Aids with Vocabulary, and Commentary. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2018. https://doi. org/10.11647/OBP.0156 Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright holders and any omission or error will be corrected if notification is made to the publisher. In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit https:// www.openbookpublishers.com/product/845#copyright Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/ All external links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated and have been archived via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at https://archive.org/web Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at https://www.
    [Show full text]
  • Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea Berit Van Neste University of South Florida
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 4-12-2006 Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea Berit Van Neste University of South Florida Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Neste, Berit Van, "Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea" (2006). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3782 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cicero and St. Augustine's Just War Theory: Classical Influences on a Christian Idea by Berit Van Neste A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Religious Studies College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: James F. Strange, Ph.D. Paul G. Schneider, Ph.D. Michael J. Decker, Ph.D. Date of Approval: April 12, 2006 Keywords: theology, philosophy, politics, patristic, medieval © Copyright 2006 , Berit Van Neste For Elizabeth and Calista Table of Contents Abstract ii Chapter 1 1 Introduction 1 Cicero’s Influence on Augustine 7 Chapter 2 13 Justice 13 Natural and Temporal Law 19 Commonwealth 34 Chapter 3 49 Just War 49 Chapter 4 60 Conclusion 60 References 64 i Cicero and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Gulino 1 Pleasure and the Stoic Sage a Thesis Presented to the Honors
    Gulino 1 Pleasure and the Stoic Sage A Thesis Presented to The Honors Tutorial College of Ohio University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy By Kathleen R. Gulino June 2011 Gulino 2 Table of Contents Sources and Abbreviations 2 Introduction 3 Chapter 1: Οἰκείωζις 9 Chapter 2: Χαρά 25 Conclusions 42 References 50 Gulino 3 Sources and Abbreviations Throughout this work, I cite several traditional sources for Stoic and Hellenistic texts. Here I have provided a list of the abbreviations I will use to refer to those texts. The References page lists the specific editions from which I have cited. Fin. Cicero, De Finibus (On Moral Ends) NA Gellius, Noctes Atticae (Attic Nights) Div. Inst. Lactantius, Divine Institutes DL Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers LS A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers Ep. Seneca, Epistulae (Letters) Gulino 4 Introduction. The Hellenistic period refers, generally speaking, to the years beginning with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and ending with the downfall of the Roman Republic, considered as Octavian‘s victory at the battle of Actium, in 31 BCE. Philosophy was a Greek activity throughout this period, and at the outset, the works of Plato and Aristotle were the main texts used in philosophical study. However, as the Hellenistic culture came into its own, philosophy came to be dominated by three schools unique to the period: Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism. All of these, having come about after Aristotle, are distinctively Hellenistic, and it was these schools that held primary influence over thought in the Hellenistic world, at least until the revival of Platonism during the first century.1 Today, in the English-speaking world, the names of these traditions are still familiar, remaining in popular usage as ordinary adjectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Dirk Held on Eros Beauty and the Divine in Plato
    Nina C. Coppolino, editor ARTICLES & NOTES New England Classical Journal 36.3 (2009) 155-167 Eros, Beauty, and the Divine in Plato Dirk t. D. Held Connecticut College ontemporary intellectual culture is diffident, perhaps hostile, towards the transcendent aspects of Plato’s metaphysics; instead, preference is given to the openness and inconclusiveness of CSocratic inquiry. But it is not possible to distinguish clearly between the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. This essay argues first that Socrates does more than inquire: he enlarges the search for truth with attention to erotics. It further contends that Plato’s transformative vision of beauty and the divine directs the soul, also through erotics, to truth not accessible to syllogisms alone. We must therefore acknowledge that Plato’s philosophy relies at times on affective and even supra-rational means. Debate over the function of philosophy for Socrates and Plato arose immediately following the latter’s death. The early Academy discussed the mode and intent of reason for Socrates and Plato in terms of whether it was best characterized as skepticism or dogmatism. The issue remains pertinent to the present discussion of how Plato intends mortals both to live a life of reason and strive for the divine which is beyond the normal grasp of reason. What we regard as the traditional “Socratic question” arose in the early nineteenth century from studies of Plato by the Protestant theologian and philosopher, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The phrase stands for the attempt to winnow out an historical figure from the disparate accounts of Socrates found in Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Volume 31, Winter 2006
    LIVING IN DOUBT: CARNEADES’ PITHANON RECONSIDERED SUZANNE OBDRZALEK I though the interpretation of ancient texts is inevitably di¶cult, Carneades presents what one might call a worst-case scenario. In the first place, he wrote nothing. To complicate matters, Carneades’ views were so obscure that his faithful disciple Clitomachus con- fessed that he could never figure out what Carneades actually be- lieved (Cic. Acad. 2. 139). Showing remarkable fortitude in the face of such an obstacle, Clitomachus, attempting to play Plato to Carneades’ Socrates, reportedly recorded Carneades’ teachings in 400 books (D.L. 4. 67). Not one remains. None the less, Clito- machus’ attempt to make a philosophy of Carneades’ anti-theoreti- cal stance was not a complete failure; Carneades had a tremendous influence on the later Academy as well as the Stoa, and his views (or lack thereof) have been handed down to us by both Sextus Em- piricus and Cicero. These sources are, however, problematic. As a Pyrrhonist, Sextus was critical of the Academy and may have ex- aggerated what he took to be Carneades’ dogmatism. Cicero, on the other hand, a student of Philo, was undoubtedly influenced in his interpretation of Carneades by his teacher’s dogmatic scepti- cism. Carneades is perhaps best known for proposing the pithan»e phantasia (probable impression) as a criterion for life. However, the status of his theory of the pithanon (probable) is completely unclear.1 Was it merely a dialectical move against the Stoic charge of apraxia (inaction)? Was it a theory that Carneades himself en- ã Suzanne Obdrzalek 2006 I would like to thank Alan Code, Tony Long, Julius Moravcsik, and David Sedley for their comments on this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander and the 'Defeat' of the Sogdianian Revolt
    Alexander the Great and the “Defeat” of the Sogdianian Revolt* Salvatore Vacante “A victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers” (W. Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing, Act I, Scene I) (i) At the beginning of 329,1 the flight of the satrap Bessus towards the northeastern borders of the former Persian Empire gave Alexander the Great the timely opportunity for the invasion of Sogdiana.2 This ancient region was located between the Oxus (present Amu-Darya) and Iaxartes (Syr-Darya) Rivers, where we now find the modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, bordering on the South with ancient Bactria (present Afghanistan). According to literary sources, the Macedonians rapidly occupied this large area with its “capital” Maracanda3 and also built, along the Iaxartes, the famous Alexandria Eschate, “the Farthermost.”4 However, during the same year, the Sogdianian nobles Spitamenes and Catanes5 were able to create a coalition of Sogdianians, Bactrians and Scythians, who created serious problems for Macedonian power in the region, forcing Alexander to return for the winter of 329/8 to the largest city of Bactria, Zariaspa-Bactra.6 The chiefs of the revolt were those who had *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conflict Archaeology Postgraduate Conference organized by the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology of the University of Glasgow on October 7th – 9th 2011. 1 Except where differently indicated, all the dates are BCE. 2 Arr. 3.28.10-29.6. 3 Arr. 3.30.6; Curt. 7.6.10: modern Samarkand. According to Curtius, the city was surrounded by long walls (70 stades, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Origen in the Likeness of Philo: Eusebius of Caesarea's Portrait Of
    SCJR 12, no. 1 (2017): 1-13 Origen in the Likeness of Philo: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Portrait of the Model Scholar JUSTIN M. ROGERS [email protected] Freed-Hardeman University, Henderson, TN 38340 The name of Philo of Alexandria occurs more in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea than in those of any other ancient author. Philo’s name can be located over 20 times in the surviving literary corpus of Eusebius,1 and there is strong ev- idence that Eusebius’ Caesarean library is the very reason Philo’s works exist today.2 In all probability, the core of this library can be traced to the personal col- lection of Origen when he settled in Caesarea in 232 CE.3 Eusebius’ own teacher Pamphilus expanded the library, and took great pains to copy and preserve Ori- gen’s own works. What we have, then, is a literary union between Philo and Origen, Alexandrians within the same exegetical tradition. But we can go further. Ilaria Ramelli has argued that Eusebius’ accounts of Philo and Origen in the Ecclesiastical History are strikingly similar, picking up Robert Grant’s stress on the similarity between Origen and the Philonic Therapeutae.4 Here, I further Ramelli’s work by noting additional similarities in the Eusebian biographical presentations. I also point to the tension Eusebius felt between Philo Christianus and Philo Judaeus, a tension detectible in his presentation of the Therapeutae, a group about whom Philo reported and whom Eusebius considered to be the first Egyptian Christians.5 The result is that Eusebius recognized Philo to be exegeti- cally closer to Christianity, and religiously closer to Judaism.
    [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]