DOCSLIB.ORG

Aestimatio: Critical Reviews in the History of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aestimatio: Critical Reviews in the History of Science Jamblique. In Nicomachi arithmeticam. Introduction, texte critique, tra- duction française et notes de commentaire by Nicolas Vinel Mathematica Graeca Antiqua 3. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2014. Pp. 356. ISBN 978–88–6227–616–0. Paper €110.00 Reviewed by Federico M. Petrucci Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa federicofi[email protected] The relationship between Plato and ancient Pythagoreanism remains a mys- tery. Yet, one can be quite sure that a strong interlacement of the Platonic tradition and a conscious Pythagorean inspiration (at least in attention to num- bers and mathematics, and their applications in physics and metaphysics) characterized not only the Old Academy1 but also Middle Platonism and Neo- platonism.The excellent book by Nicolas Vinel contributes to our knowledge of this fact by providing scholars with a very useful and careful edition of a (usually disregarded) work by Iamblichus, a Neoplatonist deeply interested in the Pythagorean tradition. In the Old Academy, there was established a mathematical tradition that was grounded mainly in an arithmo-geometrical perspective. Although some of its elements were probably recovered to some extent and refashioned by Euclid,2 the arithmo-geometrical core of this tradition was somehow left aside by the ‘major’ stream of Greek mathematics. Nonetheless, one can easily find its re-appearance in the Imperial age: for example, in the extensive work by Moderatus of Gades in the early first century ad, who gathered the opinions (ἀρέϲκοντα) of ‘Pythagoreans’ in 10 books, of which only a 1 See Burkert 1972 which demonstrates how far post-Platonic accounts on Pythagore- anism are influenced by Platonic and Academic elements. A different approach to the history of Pythagoreanism is now proposed by Phillip Horky in several contri- butions: see especially Horky 2013. On the history of Pre-Platonic Pythagoreanism, see also Centrone 1995 and Huffman 2014. For a different perspective, see Zhmud 2012. 2 Bernard Vitrac and Fabio Acerbi have in many works indicated the need to go be- yond the traditional idea that Euclid’s Elements are only a summa of preceding discoveries. © 2014 Institute for Research in Classical Philosophy and Science issn 1549–4497 (online) All rights reserved issn 1549–4470 (print) Aestimatio 11 (2014) 342–353 343 Aestimatio few fragments remain, and in the writings by Nicomachus of Gerasa in the second.3 It has been demonstrated that the usual term for these authors, ‘Neopythagoreans’, is misleading since they do in fact work within the Pla- tonic tradition [see Centrone 2000]. Nonetheless, they show a specific interest in mathematics and appeal explicitly to the Pythagorean tradition.This stream, moreover, provides an effective example of a widespread tendency of Imperial Platonism that consists in associating Plato with the Pythagorean tradition from a more general point of view.This is the case, for instance, with Numenius of Apamea [see des Places 1973, fr. 24] and Plutarch’s De E ch. 7–16 (though this is not Plutarch’s own position, at least at the time that he wrote this work). Such a tendency of Imperial Platonism remained fundamental in the Platonic tradition, albeit to different extents.Thus, while Porphyry was generally interested in Pythagoreanism—he wrote a Life of Pythagoras—Iamblichus of Chalcis shows a peculiarly strong commitment to it.4 Indeed, besides his more traditional writings such as his commentaries on various Platonic dialogues,5 Iamblichus engaged in the ambitious project On the Pythagorean School (Περὶ τῆϲ Πυθαγορικῆϲ αἱρέϲεωϲ), which aimed to set out in 10 books an introduction to the whole of Pythagorean doctrine.6 3 In the same tradition, one should probably consider also other Platonists, the best known of whom is Thrasyllus [see Tarrant 1994]. The case of Theon of Smyrna is different, since his Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem util- ium must be considered rather as a technical exegesis of the mathematical sections of Plato’s psychogony. Interesting papers on the relationship between Platonism and Pythagoreanism in the Imperial age are collected in Bonazzi, Lévy, and Steel 2007. I emphasize that it is necessary to suppose that a ‘Pythagorean’ tendency was some- how preserved also in the Hellenistic age: this is almost the unique historical condi- tion under which one can understand Moderatus’ work in the first century ad. It is worth noting, finally, that one among the ‘founders’ of post-Hellenistic Platonism, Eudorus of Alexandria, had a strong interest in the Pythagorean tradition, which he ‘used’ in order to sustain his new Platonic perspective: the so-called Pseudo- Pythagorica [see Centrone 2014] were probably produced, at least in the majority of cases, in the context of his school [see Bonazzi 2013]. 4 On the Neoplatonist interest in Pythagoreanism, see Macris 2014 and O’Meara 2014. O’Meara, especially, has contributed studies providing an authoritative basis for deeper inquiry. 5 The fragments are collected in Dillon 1973. 6 For a comprehensive account of Iamblichus, see Dillon 1987. Vinel supplies a brief sketch of him and his philosophical project on pp. 11–13. Federico M. Petrucci 344 His In Nicomachi arithmeticam belongs to this latter project, being the fourth treatise of the series. This outstanding work by Vinel, then, has the great merit of making available to scholars a new suitably critical edition of the Greek text, a good translation, and a very careful commentary. The book consists of an introduction [11–66] dealing with general interpretative problems in this text and focusing on its most important aspects; a French translation of a new critical text in Greek that is based on a complete collation of extant manuscripts and offers a useful apparatus of parallel passages along with an apparatus criticus [68–197]; a series of notes of commentary [199–265]; and an impressive set of indices, which make the book even more useful [267–344]. At the same time, Vinel aims to make clear the originality of Iamblichus’ In Nic. arith. by demonstrating that it is not a commentary on Nicomachus’ Introductio arithmetica (the fundamental treatise of Pythagorean-Platonic arithmetic in the Imperial age) but a work taking Nicomachus’ writings (both transmitted and now lost) as a point of departure in order to develop a new account of Pythagorean and Platonic arithmetic.7 Apart from some minor aspects, which I will discuss in due course, this goal is well achieved.8 The first among Vinel’s tasks, then, is to overcome the commonplace no- tion that has Iamblichus’ In Nic. arith. as only a sort of rearrangement of Nicomachus’ Intro. arith.9 He begins by focusing on the title and the de- 7 This point is convincingly achieved by referring to Iamblichus’ writing practice (usus scribendi) [14–15]: Iamblichus says that he will appeal to Nicomachus’ τέχνη, and at the same time he uses « τέχνη » to indicate a general field of interest or study [see also 200n10]. I am less inclined to agree with Vinel’s translation of « τέχνη » as ‘science’, since this somehow leaves aside the procedural aspects that are implied by « τέχνη ». 8 The idea that Nicomachus is the most important reference for Iamblichus, who, however, tries to supplement his doctrines, raises the issue of Iamblichus’ relation to the Euclidean tradition. Vinel emphasizes (quite briefly, though: see 23 and the notes at 216 ff.) that Iamblichus criticizes Euclid. Here it would have been helpful toexplore whether Iamblichus deliberately obscures other interpretations of topics dealt with by Nicomachus (e.g., Geminus’ account of the classification of sciences, which was to some extent known in Neoplatonism) or whether he was not acquainted with them. 9 Vinel offers a valuable survey of this prejudice against Iamblichus’ originality [13] but also emphasizes that scholars still could not avoid noting, albeit in a non-systematic and inconsistent way, some originality in Iamblichus’ work. 345 Aestimatio clared aim of the work [14–15]. As a matter of fact, Iamblichus never says that he is producing a commentary on Nicomachus but only that he will offer an introduction (εἰϲαγωγή)10 to arithmetic by taking Nicomachus’ writ- ings (and not only his Intro. arith.) as a starting point. Nevertheless, Vinel demonstrates that the title offered by the manuscript tradition «Περὶ τῆϲ Νικομάχου ἀριθμητικῆϲ εἰϲαγωγῆϲ» should not be accepted. He proposes three alternatives, the last of which («Περὶ τῆϲ Νικομάχου ἀριθμητικῆϲ») is (quite reasonably) adopted in the critical edition [15]. Accordingly, this conclusion is confirmed by means of a survey of Nicomachean doctrines and other sources in Iamblichus’ text [19–23]: Nicomachus, it turns out, is a sort of fil rouge for discussion that Iamblichus sometimes follows and sometimes leaves behind as he introduces new doctrines and terms.This would be typical of Iamblichus’ way of dealing with sources. Vinel compares this approach to Iamblichus’ treatment of Porphyry’s commentaries [20].11 There is one point that I should like to stress. As Vinel correctly notes [201n13], Iamblichus explicitly criticizes innovation (καινοτομία) and prefers to appeal to a well–established tradition, i.e., to that of Pythagoras, which he takes to have been advanced by Nicomachus. Vinel then indicates that this would seem to be inconsistent with Iamblichus’ own innovations but leaves the matter without further discussion. However, in my view, this should be a 10 If this is the case, however, it would have been helpful to expand on the relationship between this work and the prolegomena to mathematical works [see Mansfeld 1998] and to the literary genre to which In Nic. arith. belongs. 11 While the analysis of contents and titles of the work is effective, the latter point concerning Iamblichus’ attitude towards his sources is a bit controversial. First, al- though a passage of Simplicius’ In Arist. cat.[Heiberg 1894, 2.9–13] seems to work as a confirmation, one cannot establish a strict parallel between Iamblichus’ methods, since the context and form of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries are usu- ally puzzling.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plotinus, Epicurus, and the Gnostics: on Plotinian Classification of Philosophies
    PLOTINUS, EPICURUS, AND THE GNOSTICS: ON PLOTINIAN CLASSIFICATION OF PHILOSOPHIES Andrei Cornea 1. When we try to figure out what Plotinus might have looked like, it is a Byzantine icon that usually comes up in our mind: a slim, tall, highly- spiritualized figure, floating in out-of-this-world space, intensively gazing upon us, totally detached from the things below. Yet such an image over- simplifies this philosopher’s life. For instance, although one does not expect a Byzantine icon to be involved in heavy polemic, polemic plays an impor- tant role in Plotinus’ life and philosophy. So the icon has got cracks. In fact, because Plotinus, like many in his epoch, denied that his ideas had any basic originality,1 considering them (despite obvious and essential innovations) to be but the unfolding of one master’s ultimate truth, polemic mainly con- cerned the question of whether or not his own interpretation of this master, Plato, was the most faithful of all. Besides, Plotinus believed, Plato had to be defended against all misinterpretation and outright contestation which were never in short supply. So Plotinus had a lot of potential adversaries; but of course he could not afford to take on all of them at once. Therefore, he needed politics. In fact, there is no polemic without some politics, and that prompts me to invoke Carl Schmitt’s famous definition: The political is the art of distinguishing friends from enemies. In other words, politics usually establish a divide between the former and the latter that must be appropriate to the occasion.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Discourse in Philosophical Authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on Mathematical Astronomy
    Mathematical discourse in philosophical authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on mathematical astronomy Nathan Sidoli Introduction Ancient philosophers and other intellectuals often mention the work of mathematicians, al- though the latter rarely return the favor.1 The most obvious reason for this stems from the im- personal nature of mathematical discourse, which tends to eschew any discussion of personal, or lived, experience. There seems to be more at stake than this, however, because when math- ematicians do mention names they almost always belong to the small group of people who are known to us as mathematicians, or who are known to us through their mathematical works.2 In order to be accepted as a member of the group of mathematicians, one must not only have mastered various technical concepts and methods, but must also have learned how to express oneself in a stylized form of Greek prose that has often struck the uninitiated as peculiar.3 Be- cause of the specialized nature of this type of intellectual activity, in order to gain real mastery it was probably necessary to have studied it from youth, or to have had the time to apply oneself uninterruptedly.4 Hence, the private nature of ancient education meant that there were many educated individuals who had not mastered, or perhaps even been much exposed to, aspects of ancient mathematical thought and practice that we would regard as rather elementary (Cribiore 2001; Sidoli 2015). Starting from at least the late Hellenistic period, and especially during the Imperial and Late- Ancient periods, some authors sought to address this situation in a variety of different ways— such as discussing technical topics in more elementary modes, rewriting mathematical argu- ments so as to be intelligible to a broader audience, or incorporating mathematical material di- rectly into philosophical curricula.
    [Show full text]
  • Marie-Luise Lakmann, Platonici Minores: 1
    MARIE-LUISE LAKMANN, Platonici minores: 1. Jh.v.Chr. - 2. Jh.n.Chr. Prosopographie. Fragmente und Testimonien mit deutscher Überset- zung. Philosophia antiqua, 145, Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2017, xi+824 pp., $236.00, ISBN 978-90-04-31533-4. This is indeed a mighty work, an offshoot of a yet mightier one, the great project ‘Der Platonismus in der Antike’, initiated many years ago by Heinrich Dórrie, and continued, first by Matthias Baltes, and, most recently, by Christian Pietsch, who is currently bringing it at last to its conclusion with the eighth volume. What Professor Lakmann, who has been closely connected with this project, has set herself to do here is to make the fullest possible collection of minor figures involved in Platonist philosophizing over the period conventionally regarded as ‘Middle Platonic’, in order to give some attention to the persons behind the doctrines. To this end, she has assembled data on some 88 individuals, including four Anonymi, and some very obscure figures indeed. The work is divided into two main sections: ‘Prosopographie’, in which she sets out and discusses what is known about the lives and doctrines of the figures concerned, and ‘Texte und Ubersetzungen’, in which the relevant fragments and testimonia are presented and translated (the translations being undertaken by Erhard Pahnke and Henner Thoss). The only inadequacy I find with this arrangemnt is that there is no provision for discussing the contexts of the individual passages quoted, and the details of doctrine involved, as would sometimes be desirable – but one hesitates to suggest anything that would make a book of 835 pages even longer! She has, quite reasonably, chosen to exclude major figures, such as Antiochus of Ascalon, Eudorus, Plutarch, Atticus, Apuleius, Albinus, or Numenius, who either have major works surviving (as in the case of Plutarch, Apuleius or Albinus), or who have had their fragments adequately collected (though she does include here L.
    [Show full text]
  • Geminus and the Isia
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by DSpace at New York University GEMINUS AND THE ISIA ALEXANDER JONES T HE torical Greek interest, scientific including a lost writer treatise onGeminus the foundations wrote of several works of his- mathematics and an extant book on astronomy known as the Isagoge ("Introduction to the Phenomena"). The Isagoge is important to us as a witness to a stage of Greek astronomy that was both less advanced and less homogeneous in method than Ptolemy's. Approximate knowledge of when its author lived would be useful in several respects, for exam- ple in tracing the diffusion of elements originating in Babylonian lunar theory and in Hipparchus' work. Recent scholarship frequently cites Neugebauer's dating of Geminus to about A.D. 50, which has largely superseded the dating to the first half of the first century B.C. that used to be widely accepted.' Both dates derive, oddly enough, from analysis of the same passage in the Isagoge. The purpose of this note is to eluci- date the chronological issues, and to present documentary evidence that decisively establishes the earlier dating. The limits established by ancient citations are not very narrow. Isa- goge 4 mentions Hipparchus as an authority concerning constellations, and though Geminus does not say so, the lengths of the astronomical seasons listed in Isagoge I are the values that Hipparchus had used in deriving a model for the sun's motion. These passages cannot have been written before the 140s B.C. Moreover, Alexander of Aphrodisias (In Arist.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 · Greek Cartography in the Early Roman World
    10 · Greek Cartography in the Early Roman World PREPARED BY THE EDITORS FROM MATERIALS SUPPLIED BY GERMAINE AUJAe The Roman republic offers a good case for continuing to treat the Greek contribution to mapping as a separate CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN THEORETICAL strand in the history ofclassical cartography. While there CARTOGRAPHY: POLYBIUS, CRATES, was a considerable blending-and interdependence-of AND HIPPARCHUS Greek and Roman concepts and skills, the fundamental distinction between the often theoretical nature of the Greek contribution and the increasingly practical uses The extent to which a new generation of scholars in the for maps devised by the Romans forms a familiar but second century B.C. was familiar with the texts, maps, satisfactory division for their respective cartographic in­ and globes of the Hellenistic period is a clear pointer to fluences. Certainly the political expansion of Rome, an uninterrupted continuity of cartographic knowledge. whose domination was rapidly extending over the Med­ Such knowledge, relating to both terrestrial and celestial iterranean, did not lead to an eclipse of Greek influence. mapping, had been transmitted through a succession of It is true that after the death of Ptolemy III Euergetes in well-defined master-pupil relationships, and the pres­ 221 B.C. a decline in the cultural supremacy of Alex­ ervation of texts and three-dimensional models had been andria set in. Intellectual life moved to more energetic aided by the growth of libraries. Yet this evidence should centers such as Pergamum, Rhodes, and above all Rome, not be interpreted to suggest that the Greek contribution but this promoted the diffusion and development of to cartography in the early Roman world was merely a Greek knowledge about maps rather than its extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Ptolemy's Longitudes and Eratosthenes' Measurement of The
    NISSUNA UMANA INVESTIGAZIONE SI PUO DIMANDARE VERA SCIENZIA S’ESSA NON PASSA PER LE MATEMATICHE DIMOSTRAZIONI LEONARDO DA VINCI vol. 1 no. 1 2013 Mathematics and Mechanics of Complex Systems LUCIO RUSSO PTOLEMY’S LONGITUDES AND ERATOSTHENES’ MEASUREMENT OF THE EARTH’S CIRCUMFERENCE msp MATHEMATICS AND MECHANICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS Vol. 1, No. 1, 2013 dx.doi.org/10.2140/memocs.2013.1.67 ∩ MM PTOLEMY’S LONGITUDES AND ERATOSTHENES’ MEASUREMENT OF THE EARTH’S CIRCUMFERENCE LUCIO RUSSO A statistical analysis of the longitudes reported in Ptolemy’s Geographia shows that many of them were obtained by distorting in a linear way data which were known with good accuracy. As a consequence, a new estimate of the value of the stadion used by Eratosthenes is obtained, supporting the thesis that his measurement of the Earth’s circumference was remarkably accurate. Some con- jectures about possible simplifications introduced by Cleomedes in his account of Eratosthenes’ method are also proposed. 1. The distortion of longitudes in Ptolemy’s Geographia The longitudes of 6345 localities1 reported by Ptolemy in his Geographia [Stückel- berger and Graßhoff 2006] are affected by an error which dilates their differences. While this error has been often remarked, it has not been so far analyzed in a quantitative way. The analysis of the distortion of the longitudes for all 6345 localities considered by Ptolemy is inconvenient for several reasons. First, many of the places are not identifiable with reasonable certainty. Furthermore for some regions the systematic error overlaps errors of different nature, due to the lack of knowledge of the country (this is the case, for example, for Indian localities).
    [Show full text]
  • Numenius and the Hellenistic Sources of the Central Christian Doctrine
    ! Numenius and the Hellenistic Sources ! of the Central Christian Doctrine Marian Hillar Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies Houston, TX 77004 Paper published in A Journal from the Radical Reformation. A testimony to Biblical Unitarianism. Vol. 14, No.! 1, Spring 2007, pp. 3-31. Quis obsecro, nisi penitus amens logomachias has sine risu toleraret? Nec in Thalmud, nec in Alchoran, sunt tam horrendae blasfemiae. Haec nos hactenus audire ita sumus alsuefacti, ut nihil miremur. Futurae vero generationes stupenda haec iudicabunt. Stupenda sunt vere, plusquam ea daemonum inventa, quae Valentinianis tribuit Irenaeus. I implore you, who in his sane mind could tolerate such logomachias without bursting into laughter? Not in the Talmud, nor in the Qu’ran can one find such horrendous blasphemies. But we are accustomed to hear them to the point that nothing astonishes us. Future generations will judge them obscure. Indeed, they are obscure, much more than the diabolic inventions which Irenaeus attributed to the Valentinians. ! Michael Servetus Christianismi Restitutio, De Trinitate, lib. I. p. 46. Si locum mihi aliquem ostendas, quo verbum illud filius olim vocetur, fatebor me victum. Christianismi Restitutio, If you show me a single passage in which the Son was called the Word, I will give up. Michael Servetus, Christianismi Restitutio, De Trinitate, lib. III p. 108. ! Abstract This paper attempts to explain the sources of the central Christian doctrine about the nature of deity. We can trace a continuous line of thought from the Greek philosophy to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. The first Christian doctrine was developed by Justin Martyr (114-165 C.E.).
    [Show full text]
  • Conclusion Full Article Language: En Indien Anders: Engelse Articletitle: 0
    _full_alt_author_running_head (neem stramien B2 voor dit chapter en dubbelklik nul hierna en zet 2 auteursnamen neer op die plek met and): 0 _full_articletitle_deel (kopregel rechts, vul hierna in): Conclusion _full_article_language: en indien anders: engelse articletitle: 0 496 Tihon Conclusion Anne Tihon When I agreed to write a conclusion to this Companion to Byzantine Science, I took on a perilous task. Each chapter of this book indeed contains an impres- sive amount of erudition, and each topic treated here would deserve in itself one or more separate volumes. However, reading the different chapters, a first remark comes to mind: it is time to stop apologizing for using the word “sci- ence” when studying Byzantine civilisation. The word “science”̕ may cover many different activities: study, teaching, creating manuals, commenting on scientific treatises, applying ancient or modern methods, conducting research, experiments and so on. There is no doubt that all the activities described in this volume fall into at least one of these categories. In spite of some received ideas, the Byzantine world was open to all kinds of intellectual activity, and especially to the scientific legacy from antiquity. This consists of a considerable number of writings which laid the foundation of science in the modern meaning of the word: Euclid, Apollonius, Archimedes, Diophantus, Ptolemy, Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, including many more elementary treatises such as Autolycus, Theodosius, Geminus, Cleomedes and others. Everybody agrees that the Byzantines preserved this legacy; but they did much more than simply preserve it: they kept it alive. Some Byzantine scholars undertook considerable work in understanding and practising, for example, the astronomical exercises and calculations of Ptolemy.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Parmenides and Its Heritage. Volume 1
    PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE VOLUME 1 PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND its heritage VOLUME 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Writings from the Greco-Roman World Supplement Series Edited by John T. Fitzgerald Series Editor John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan Number 2 Society of Biblical Literature PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND ITS HERITAGE, VOLUME 1 Atlanta PLATO’S PARMENIDES AND its heritage VOLUME 1: History and Interpretation from the Old Academy to Later Platonism and Gnosticism Edited by John D. Turner and Kevin Corrigan Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta Contents Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 Section 1: Plato, from the Old Academy to Middle Platonism 1. The Place of the Parmenides in Plato’s Thought and in the Subsequent Tradition 23 Kevin Corrigan 2. Speusippus’s Neutral Conception of the One and Plato’s Parmenides 37 Gerald Bechtle 3. The Fragment of Speusippus in Column I of the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides 59 Luc Brisson 4. Speusippus and the Ontological Interpretation of the Parmenides 67 John Dillon 5. The Indefinite Dyad in Sextus Empiricus’s Report (Adversus Mathathematicos 10.248–283) and Plato’s Parmenides 79 Thomas Szlezák 6. Plato and Parmenides in Agreement: Ammonius’s Praise of God as One-Being in Plutarch’s The E At Delphi 93 Zlatko Pleše 7. Moderatus, E. R. Dodds, and the Development of Neoplatonist Emanation 115 J. Noel Hubler Section 2: Middle Platonic and Gnostic Texts 8. The Platonizing Sethian Treatises, Marius Victorinus’s Philosophical Sources, and Pre-Plotinian Parmenides Commentaries 131 John D.
    [Show full text]
  • INFINITE PROCESSES in GREEK MATHEMATICS by George
    INFINITE PROCESSES IN GREEK MATHEMATICS by George Clarence Vedova Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1943 UMI Number: DP70209 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP70209 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 PREFACE The thesis is a historico-philosophic survey of infinite processes in Greek mathematics* Beginning with the first emergence, in Ionian speculative cosmogony, of the tinder lying concepts of infinity, continuity, infinitesimal and limit, the survey follows the development of infinite processes through the ages as these concepts gain in clarity, -it notes the positive contributions of various schools of thought, the negative and corrective influences of others and, in a broad way, establishes the causal chain that finally led to the more abstract processes of the mathematical schools of Cnidus (Eudoxus) and Syracuse
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Greek Mathematics
    Cambridge Library Co ll e C t i o n Books of enduring scholarly value Classics From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, Latin and Greek were compulsory subjects in almost all European universities, and most early modern scholars published their research and conducted international correspondence in Latin. Latin had continued in use in Western Europe long after the fall of the Roman empire as the lingua franca of the educated classes and of law, diplomacy, religion and university teaching. The flight of Greek scholars to the West after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 gave impetus to the study of ancient Greek literature and the Greek New Testament. Eventually, just as nineteenth-century reforms of university curricula were beginning to erode this ascendancy, developments in textual criticism and linguistic analysis, and new ways of studying ancient societies, especially archaeology, led to renewed enthusiasm for the Classics. This collection offers works of criticism, interpretation and synthesis by the outstanding scholars of the nineteenth century. A Short History of Greek Mathematics James Gow’s Short History of Greek Mathematics (1884) provided the first full account of the subject available in English, and it today remains a clear and thorough guide to early arithmetic and geometry. Beginning with the origins of the numerical system and proceeding through the theorems of Pythagoras, Euclid, Archimedes and many others, the Short History offers in-depth analysis and useful translations of individual texts as well as a broad historical overview of the development of mathematics. Parts I and II concern Greek arithmetic, including the origin of alphabetic numerals and the nomenclature for operations; Part III constitutes a complete history of Greek geometry, from its earliest precursors in Egypt and Babylon through to the innovations of the Ionic, Sophistic, and Academic schools and their followers.
    [Show full text]