John Glucker, "A Platonic Cento in Cicero", Phronesis 44 30-44, argues that the account of the mind's experiences at Cicero, De divinatione 1.115 derives from an unknown Platonist's combination of Plato, Meno 81c5-d1 and Republic 10 614d3-615a5. G.'s connection of what is said by Cicero with these two passages of Plato is persuasive; but in concentrating on the surface references to souls' memory of their experiences in previous lives the Ciceronian account fails to do justice to the underlying significance of (...) both passages. It is also questionable whether an unknown Platonist needs to be invoked as a source; the interpretation of the two Platonic passages could be Cicero's own. (shrink)

John Glucker, "A Platonic Cento in Cicero", Phronesis 44 30-44, argues that the account of the mind's experiences at Cicero, De divinatione 1.115 derives from an unknown Platonist's combination of Plato, Meno 81c5-d1 and Republic 10 614d3-615a5. G.'s connection of what is said by Cicero with these two passages of Plato is persuasive; but in concentrating on the surface references to souls' memory of their experiences in previous lives the Ciceronian account fails to do justice to the underlying significance of (...) both passages. It is also questionable whether an unknown Platonist needs to be invoked as a source; the interpretation of the two Platonic passages could be Cicero's own. (shrink)

The treatise De intellectu attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias can be divided into four sections. The first is an interpretation of the Aristotelian theory of intellect, and especially of the active intellect referred to in Aristotle, De anima 3.5, which differs from the interpretation in Alexander's own De anima, and whose relation to Alexander's De anima, attribution to Alexander, and date are all disputed. The second is an account of the intellect which is broadly similar to A though differing on (...) certain points. The third is an account of someone's response to the problem of how intellect can enter the human being ‘from outside’ if it is incorporeal and hence cannot move at all; in the fourth the writer who reported Cl criticizes that solution and gives his own alternative one. (shrink)

John Glucker, "A Platonic Cento in Cicero", Phronesis 44 (1999) 30-44, argues that the account of the mind's experiences at Cicero, De divinatione 1.115 derives from an unknown Platonist's combination of Plato, Meno 81c5-d1 and Republic 10 614d3-615a5. G.'s connection of what is said by Cicero with these two passages of Plato is persuasive; but in concentrating on the surface references to souls' memory of their experiences in previous lives the Ciceronian account fails to do justice to the underlying significance (...) of both passages. It is also questionable whether an unknown Platonist needs to be invoked as a source; the interpretation of the two Platonic passages could be Cicero's own. (shrink)

The treatise De intellectu attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias can be divided into four sections. The first is an interpretation of the Aristotelian theory of intellect, and especially of the active intellect referred to in Aristotle, De anima 3.5, which differs from the interpretation in Alexander's own De anima, and whose relation to Alexander's De anima, attribution to Alexander, and date are all disputed. The second is an account of the intellect which is broadly similar to A though differing on (...) certain points. The third is an account of someone's response to the problem of how intellect can enter the human being ‘from outside’ if it is incorporeal and hence cannot move at all; in the fourth the writer who reported Cl criticizes that solution and gives his own alternative one. (shrink)

John Glucker, "A Platonic Cento in Cicero", "Phronesis" 44 30-44, argues that the account of the mind's experiences at Cicero, "De divinatione" 1.115 derives from an unknown Platonist's combination of Plato, "Meno" 81c5-d1 and "Republic" 10 614d3-615a5. G.'s connection of what is said by Cicero with these two passages of Plato is persuasive; but in concentrating on the surface references to souls' memory of their experiences in previous lives the Ciceronian account fails to do justice to the underlying significance of (...) both passages. It is also questionable whether an unknown Platonist needs to be invoked as a source; the interpretation of the two Platonic passages could be Cicero's own. (shrink)