DOCSLIB.ORG

Athens and Byzantium: Platonic Political Philosophy in Religious Empire Jeremiah Heath Russell Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Athens and Byzantium: Platonic Political Philosophy in Religious Empire Jeremiah Heath Russell Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2010 Athens and Byzantium: Platonic political philosophy in religious empire Jeremiah Heath Russell Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Russell, Jeremiah Heath, "Athens and Byzantium: Platonic political philosophy in religious empire" (2010). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2978. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2978 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ATHENS AND BYZANTIUM: PLATONIC POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY IN RELIGIOUS EMPIRE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by Jeremiah Heath Russell B.A., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001 M. Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003 M.A., Baylor University, 2006 August, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was not possible without the numerous sources of support that I received throughout my graduate studies. First, I must thank my major professor, James R. Stoner, Jr., whose encouragement was there from my earliest days at LSU until the completion of this program. He is a model intellectual with an uncanny ability to identify the heart of the matter and to offer penetrating questions. My commitment to the importance of the political, reflected in this dissertation, I owe to him. Moreover, his interest in the early stages of this project, the continued feedback, and the constant prodding to finish helped ensure its completion. I also want to thank him for his procurement of the Earhart fellowship, which made it possible for me to focus solely on my studies for four years. Gratitude is also in order to the Earhart Foundation, whose long support of political science scholarship has made a lasting impact on our discipline. I must also thank the other members of my dissertation committee. Two of the members, along with Stoner, compromised the political theory faculty at LSU during my coursework. These three men make up one of the preeminent theory faculties in the country, and I am honored to have finished the program under their tutelage. Cecil L. Eubanks, my teaching mentor, is an exemplary educator. His care for the subject matter, and more importantly the students, is something that I hope to emulate in my own career. He always has an open door, willing to listen, and his office served as a shelter for me during some stormy times. G. Ellis Sandoz also provided encouragement throughout my studies. He was instrumental in my coming to LSU and provided me an early platform to express my ideas. Much like Eubanks, Sandoz‟s academic career is exemplary, and his seemingly tireless efforts in publishing and editing scholarly works in political theory are inspiring. Besides the theorists, I want to thank William ii A. Clark, who first exposed me to the world of comparative politics; Ian Crystal for bringing his expertise on Neoplatonism to bear on my dissertation; and Dean W. David Constant for his willingness to serve. Last, but certainly not least, I must thank my family for supporting me throughout my education, particularly my doctoral program. My wife, Ashleigh, is a special and unique person, whose willingness to give is seemingly endless. As I write this on the day we celebrate our tenth year of marriage, I can honestly say that her dedication and encouragement to me over these years is perhaps the most important reason for my success. My daughter, Elizabeth, provided me determination as well as perspective. To all these and others not mentioned, I am forever grateful. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ii LIST OF TABLES . v ABSTRACT . vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE TENSION BETWEEN ATHENS AND BYZANTIUM . 1 CHAPTER 2 POLITICAL SCIENCE IN THE NEOPLATONIC CURRICULUM . 30 CHAPTER 3 THE STATESMAN AND THE BEST REGIME . 67 CHAPTER 4 CONSTITUTING THE BEST REGIME: MYTH . 103 CHAPTER 5 CONSTITUTING THE BEST REGIME: RHETORIC . 133 CHAPTER 6 THE STATESMAN‟S RETREAT IN A CORRUPT REGIME . 157 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION: THE TENSION REVISITED . 193 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 207 VITA . 221 iv LIST OF TABLES 2.1 The Hierarchy of Virtue . 43 2.2 The Neoplatonic Curriculum . 52 v ABSTRACT It is traditionally understood that there is a gap, which spans well over one thousand years, between Plato‟s own political philosophy and its successor in medieval Islamic philosophy. A most likely bridge between Plato and these later philosophers is Neoplatonism. However, scholars argue that this philosophic school abandoned its predecessor‟s emphasis on political philosophy. This dissertation challenges the traditional interpretation by reconstructing a political philosophy based on a Neoplatonic commentary on Plato‟s Gorgias. The first two chapters place this commentary within its historical context, as well as its place within the larger Neoplatonic pedagogy. The remainder of the dissertation reconstructs the commentator‟s political philosophy. The third chapter discusses his understanding of the best regime and the art of statesmanship, which in many ways is the centerpiece of his political philosophy. Chapters four and five discuss myth and rhetoric, the tools needed by the statesman to bring about the best regime. The following chapter revisits the theme of statesmanship, particularly the notion of the philosopher as statesman. vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: THE TENSION BETWEEN ATHENS AND BYZANTIUM “[Athenian:] Is it god or some human being . who is given the credit for laying down your laws? . [Klenias: A god] . But since you and this man here were reared in such conventions and habits, I expect it would not be unpleasant for you to pass the present time discussing the political regime and laws, talking and listening as we go on our way.” —Plato, Laws 624a-625a One of the more significant contributions of political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899- 1973) is the recovery of the tension between the two roots of Western civilization, religion and philosophy, or as he put it, “Jerusalem and Athens.”1 By religion, Strauss had in mind monotheistic religion, particularly Judaism and Islam, and by philosophy, he meant Greek philosophy as a “way of life,” exemplified by Socrates.2 Initially, he recalled the things they share, such as a commitment to monotheism, the love of man, and a “broad agreement” regarding morality, as well as its insufficiency for achieving the highest human happiness. As a matter of fact, Strauss acknowledges that they appear so similar that it is easy to forget their fundamental conflict, a mistake made by many modern thinkers. This conflict is expressed in 1 Leo Strauss, “Jerusalem and Athens,” in Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1983); “The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy,” The Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1979): 111-18; “Progress or Return?” in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, edited by Kenneth Hart Green (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1997). 2 Historically, the tension between philosophy and religion first emerged with the pre-Socratic philosophers. These “natural” philosophers rejected mythological accounts of the cosmos and sought rational explanations for the origins and substance of the cosmos. Thales, for example, argued that water was the substance of which all things were composed. The gods, as presented by the poets, were also the subject of criticism. Xenophanes argued that the poets imagined gods in terms of human beings: “But mortals consider that the gods are born, and that they have clothes and speech and bodies like their own.” Moreover, he writes, “The Ethopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black, the Thracians that theirs have light blue eyes and red hair.” He continues, “But if cattle and horses or lions had hands, or were able to draw their hands and do the works that men can do, horses would draw the forms of the gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they each had themselves” (Fragments 14, 16, 15). For surviving fragments of the pre-Socratics see G.S. Kirk, J.E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers (New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 1 terms of what completes morality, either piety (or the need for redemption) in the case of religion or contemplation in the case of philosophy. This initial disagreement points to a second, methodological conflict. Strauss argues that religion believes the good is equated to the ancestral, whereas philosophy seeks to transcend such convention by searching for what is right by nature. The pious person then is obedient to one ancient, divine law and rejects the alternatives, whereas the philosopher transcends the dimension of divine law altogether, in part because of the very recognition of a variety of divine codes that are contradictory between themselves. Thus, in contrast to the religious person, a philosopher can never admit to the “absolute sacredness of a particular or contingent event,” in this case a particular revelation. The philosopher searches for that which is universal, based on “sense perception and reasoning.” Yet Strauss‟ distinction appears problematic when applied to arguably the most influential of the monotheistic religions, Christianity. First of all, Christianity and philosophy were typically viewed as compatible by the Church Fathers. Almost from the religion‟s inception, Christian theologians used philosophy as a tool to express and expound the teaching of Christ and his apostles. The precision found in the formulation of doctrine, as it developed in antiquity and the medieval period, was impossible without the language and concepts of philosophy.
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]
  • Aelius Aristides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) P.279
    BLOIS, LUKAS DE, The "Eis Basilea" [Greek] of Ps.-Aelius Aristides , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 27:3 (1986:Autumn) p.279 The Ei~ BauLAea of Ps.-Aelius Aristides Lukas de Blois HE AUTHENTICITY of a speech preserved under the title El~ Ba­ T utAia in most MSS. of Aelius Aristides (Or. 35K.) has long been questioned.1 It will be argued here that the speech is a basilikos logos written by an unknown author of the mid-third century in accordance with precepts that can be found in the extant rhetorical manuals of the later Empire. Although I accept the view that the oration was written in imitation of Xenophon's Agesilaus and Isoc­ rates' Evagoras, and was clearly influenced by the speeches of Dio Chrysostom on kingship and Aristides' panegyric on Rome,2 I offer support for the view that the El~ BautAia is a panegyric addressed to a specific emperor, probably Philip the Arab, and contains a political message relevant to a specific historical situation. After a traditional opening (§ § 1-4), the author gives a compar­ atively full account of his addressee's recent accession to the throne (5-14). He praises the emperor, who attained power unexpectedly while campaigning on the eastern frontier, for doing so without strife and bloodshed, and for leading the army out of a critical situation back to his own territory. The author mentions in passing the em­ peror's education (1lf) and refers to an important post he filled just before his enthronement-a post that gave him power, prepared him for rule, and gave him an opportunity to correct wrongs (5, 13).
    [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]
  • Readings in Late Antiquity
    READINGS IN LATE ANTIQUITY “This is a wonderful anthology. Clear, accessible, and vividly engaging, it presents the panoply of Late Antique life from east to west, from city to village, from the powerful to the humble, from transcendent hopes to ordinary burdens – a world to explore, relish, and ponder.” Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Brown University “Unusually comprehensive and enterprising in its selections, this sourcebook will give an entire new generation a choice and a challenge.” Peter Brown, Princeton University Late Antiquity (c. 250–650) witnessed the transition from Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern worlds. Christianity displaced polytheism over a wide area, offering new definitions of identity and community. The Roman Empire collapsed in western Europe to be replaced by new Germanic kingdoms. In the East, Byzantium emerged, while the Persian Empire reached its apogee and collapsed. Arab armies carrying the banner of Islam reshaped the political map and brought the Late Antique era to a close. This sourcebook illustrates the dramatic political, social and religious trans- formations of Late Antiquity through the words of the men and women who experi- enced them. Drawing from Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Coptic, Persian, Arabic, and Armenian sources, the carefully chosen passages illuminate the lives of emperors, abbesses, aristocrats, slaves, children, barbarian chieftains, and saints. The Roman Empire is kept at the centre of the discussion, with chapters devoted to its government, cities, army, law, medicine, domestic life, philosophy, and its Jewish population. Further chapters deal with the peoples who surrounded the Roman state: Persians, Huns, northern barbarians, and the followers of Islam.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilakis Nation and Its Ruins.Pdf
    CLASSICAL PRESENCES General Editors Lorna Hardwick James I. Porter CLASSICAL PRESENCES The texts, ideas, images, and material culture of ancient Greece and Rome have always been crucial to attempts to appropriate the past in order to authenticate the present. They underlie the mapping of change and the assertion and challenging of values and identities, old and new. Classical Presences brings the latest scholarship to bear on the contexts, theory, and practice of such use, and abuse, of the classical past. The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece YANNIS HAMILAKIS 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Yannis Hamilakis 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nous: a Globe of Faces1
    THE NOUS: A GLOBE OF FACES1 Theodore Sabo, North-West University, South Africa ([email protected]) Abstract: Plotinus inherited the concept of the Nous from the Middle Platonists and ultimately Plato. It was for him both the Demiurge and the abode of the Forms, and his attempts at describing it, often through the use of arresting metaphors, betray substantial eloquence. None of these metaphors is more unusual than that of the globe of faces which is evoked in the sixth Ennead and which is found to possess a notable corollary in the prophet Ezekiel’s vision of the four living creatures. Plotinus’ metaphor reveals that, as in the case of Ezekiel, he was probably granted such a vision, and indeed his encounters with the Nous were not phenomena he considered lightly. Defining the Nous Plotinus’ Nous was a uniquely living entity of which there is a parallel in the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel. The concept of the Nous originated with Anaxagoras. 2 Although Empedocles’ Sphere was similarly a mind,3 Anaxagoras’ idea would win the day, and it would be lavished with much attention by the Middle and Neoplatonists. For Xenocrates the Nous was the supreme God, but for the Middle Platonists it was often the second hypostasis after the One.4 Plotinus, who likewise made the Nous his second hypostasis, equated it with the Demiurge of Plato’s Timaeus.5 He followed Antiochus of Ascalon rather than Plato in regarding it as not only the Demiurge but the Paradigm, the abode of the Forms.6 1 I would like to thank Mark Edwards, Eyjólfur Emilsson, and Svetla Slaveva-Griffin for their help with this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Iamblichus and Julian''s ''Third Demiurge'': a Proposition
    Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf To cite this version: Adrien Lecerf. Iamblichus and Julian”s ”Third Demiurge”: A Proposition . Eugene Afonasin; John M. Dillon; John F. Finamore. Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, 13, BRILL, p. 177-201, 2012, Ancient Mediterranean and Medieval Texts and Contexts. Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition, 10.1163/9789004230118_012. hal-02931399 HAL Id: hal-02931399 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02931399 Submitted on 6 Sep 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Iamblichus and Julian‟s “Third Demiurge”: A Proposition Adrien Lecerf Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France [email protected] ABSTRACT. In the Emperor Julian's Oration To the Mother of the Gods, a philosophical interpretation of the myth of Cybele and Attis, reference is made to an enigmatic "third Demiurge". Contrary to a common opinion identifying him to the visible Helios (the Sun), or to tempting identifications to Amelius' and Theodorus of Asine's three Demiurges, I suggest that a better idea would be to compare Julian's text to Proclus' system of Demiurges (as exposed and explained in a Jan Opsomer article, "La démiurgie des jeunes dieux selon Proclus", Les Etudes Classiques, 71, 2003, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Dares Phrygius' De Excidio Trojae Historia: Philological Commentary and Translation
    Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte Dares Phrygius' De Excidio Trojae Historia: Philological Commentary and Translation Jonathan Cornil Scriptie voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master in de Taal- en letterkunde (Latijn – Engels) 2011-2012 Promotor: Prof. Dr. W. Verbaal ii Table of Contents Table of Contents iii Foreword v Introduction vii Chapter I. De Excidio Trojae Historia: Philological and Historical Comments 1 A. Dares and His Historia: Shrouded in Mystery 2 1. Who Was ‘Dares the Phrygian’? 2 2. The Role of Cornelius Nepos 6 3. Time of Origin and Literary Environment 9 4. Analysing the Formal Characteristics 11 B. Dares as an Example of ‘Rewriting’ 15 1. Homeric Criticism and the Trojan Legacy in the Middle Ages 15 2. Dares’ Problematic Connection with Dictys Cretensis 20 3. Comments on the ‘Lost Greek Original’ 27 4. Conclusion 31 Chapter II. Translations 33 A. Translating Dares: Frustra Laborat, Qui Omnibus Placere Studet 34 1. Investigating DETH’s Style 34 2. My Own Translations: a Brief Comparison 39 3. A Concise Analysis of R.M. Frazer’s Translation 42 B. Translation I 50 C. Translation II 73 D. Notes 94 Bibliography 95 Appendix: the Latin DETH 99 iii iv Foreword About two years ago, I happened to be researching Cornelius Nepos’ biography of Miltiades as part of an assignment for a class devoted to the study of translating Greek and Latin texts. After heaping together everything I could find about him in the library, I came to the conclusion that I still needed more information. So I decided to embrace my identity as a loyal member of the ‘Internet generation’ and began my virtual journey through the World Wide Web in search of articles on Nepos.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48147-2 — Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture Reviel Netz Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48147-2 — Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture Reviel Netz Index More Information Index Aaker, Jennifer, 110, 111 competition, 173 Abdera, 242, 310, 314, 315, 317 longevity, 179 Abel, N. H., 185 Oresteia, 197, 200, 201 Academos, 189, 323, 324, 325, 337 papyri, 15 Academy, 322, 325, 326, 329, 337, 343, 385, 391, Persians, 183 399, 404, 427, 434, 448, 476, 477–8, 512 portraits, 64 Achilles Tatius, 53, 116, 137, 551 Ptolemaic era, 39 papyri, 16, 23 Aeschylus (astronomer), 249 Acta Alexandrinorum, 87, 604 Aesop, 52, 68, 100, 116, 165 adespota, 55, 79, 81–5, 86, 88, 91, 99, 125, 192, 194, in education, 42 196, 206, 411, 413, 542, 574 papyri, 16, 23 Adkin, Neil, 782 Aethiopia, 354 Adrastus, 483 Aetia, 277 Adrastus (mathematician), 249 Africa, 266 Adrianople, 798 Agatharchides, 471 Aedesius (martyr), 734, 736 Agathocles (historian), 243 Aegae, 479, 520 Agathocles (peripatetic), 483 Aegean, 338–43 Agathon, 280 Aegina, 265 Agias (historian), 373 Aelianus (Platonist), 484 agrimensores, 675 Aelius Aristides, 133, 657, 709 Ai Khanoum, 411 papyri, 16 Akhmatova, Anna, 186 Aelius Herodian (grammarian), 713 Albertus Magnus, 407 Aelius Promotus, 583 Albinus, 484 Aenesidemus, 478–9, 519, 520 Alcaeus, 49, 59, 61–2, 70, 116, 150, 162, 214, 246, Aeolia, 479 see also Aeolian Aeolian, 246 papyri, 15, 23 Aeschines, 39, 59, 60, 64, 93, 94, 123, 161, 166, 174, portraits, 65, 67 184, 211, 213, 216, 230, 232, 331 Alcidamas, 549 commentaries, 75 papyri, 16 Ctesiphon, 21 Alcinous, 484 False Legation, 22 Alcmaeon, 310
    [Show full text]
  • The Cappadocian Milieu 14:00 - 16:00 Tuesday, 20Th August, 2019 East School Presentation Type Short Communications Ilaria
    The Cappadocian Milieu 14:00 - 16:00 Tuesday, 20th August, 2019 East School Presentation type Short Communications Ilaria 518 Basil and Amelius Arnaud PERROT Ecole normale supérieure, Paris, France Abstract Basil’s Homily on the word: ‘In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1)’ alludes to the admiration of the pagans for the prologue of the Gospel of John and to how the pagans are supposed to have made use of this text in their own writings. Behind these words, one can easily recognize an allusion to the Neoplatonist Amelius, Plotinus’ senior disciple. Basil’s Neoplatonism has been the subject of much debate, especially as far as his direct knowledge of Plotinus is concerned. In this paper, I will show that Basil has certainly not read Amelius, but, exactly like the other Christian writers who referred to Amelius’ testimony, is dependent here on Eusebius’ Evangelical Preparation and the way the Palestinian bishop had more or less coined Amelius’ testimony on the value of John’s Prologue. 896 Sympatheia and the Body of Christ in Basil of Caesarea Thomas Tatterfield Boston College, Chestnut Hill, USA Abstract It is no secret that Basil of Caesarea utilizes the Stoic philosophical concept of sympatheia in his cosmology. This article's point of departure is an article on the subject by N. Joseph Torchia in which various Plotinian parallels are discussed. Once sympatheia is understood in its broader usage, Basil's unique treatment of it is revealed. This paper argues that Basil's use of sympatheia is integrated in to his treatment of the unity of the Church.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonism: the Last Ten Years
    The International Journal The International Journal of the of the Platonic Tradition 9 (2015) 205-220 Platonic Tradition brill.com/jpt Critical Notice ∵ Neoplatonism: The Last Ten Years The past decade or so has been an exciting time for scholarship on Neo­ platonism. I ought to know, because during my stint as the author of the “Book Notes” on Neoplatonism for the journal Phronesis, I read most of what was published in the field during this time. Having just handed the Book Notes over to George Boys­Stones, I thought it might be worthwhile to set down my overall impressions of the state of research into Neoplatonism. I cannot claim to have read all the books published on this topic in the last ten years, and I am here going to talk about certain themes and developments in the field rather than trying to list everything that has appeared. So if you are an admirer, or indeed author, of a book that goes unmentioned, please do not be affronted by this silence—it does not necessarily imply a negative judgment on my part. I hope that the survey will nonetheless be wide­ranging and comprehensive enough to be useful. I’ll start with an observation made by Richard Goulet,1 which I have been repeating to students ever since I read it. Goulet conducted a statistical analy­ sis of the philosophical literature preserved in the original Greek, and discov­ ered that almost three­quarters of it (71%) was written by Neoplatonists and commentators on Aristotle. In a sense this should come as no surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aristotelian Doctrine of Homonyma in the Categories
    JOHN P. ANTON THE ARISTOTELIAN DOCTRINE OF HOMONYMA IN THE CATEGORIES AND ITS PLATONIC ANTECEDENTS * ι The Aristotelian doctrine of h ο m ο η y m a is of particular historical in­ terest at least for the following reasons : (1) It appears that the meaning of homo n.y m a was seriously debated in Aristotle's times aud that his own formu­ lation was but one among many others. Evidently, there were other platonizing thinkers in the Academy who had formulated their own variants. According to ancient testimonies, the definition which Speusippus propounded proved to be quite influential in later times 1. (2) The fact that Aristotle chose to open the Categories with a discussion, brief as it is, on the meaning of homonyma, synonyma, and paronym a, attests to the significance]he attached to this preli­ minary chapter. Furthermore, there is general agreement among all the commen­ tators on the relevance of the first chapter of the Categories to the doctri­ ne of the categories. (3) The corpus affords ample internal evidence that the doctrine of homonyma figures largely in Aristotle's various discussions on the nature of first principles and his method of metaphysical analysis. This being the case, it is clear that Aristotle considered this part of his logical theory to have applications beyond the limited scope of what is said in the Cate­ gories. Since we do not know the actual order of Aristotle's writings it is next to the impossible to decide which formulation came first. It remains a fact that Aristotle discusses cases of homonyma and their causes as early as the Sophistici * To παρόν άρθρον εστάλη υπό τοϋ συγγραφέως, φίλου του αειμνήστου Κ.
    [Show full text]