La tradition herméneutique concernant les Catégories d’Aristote remonte à Eudore et à ses contemporains du premier siècle av. J.-C. Pour interpréter ce texte difficile, il faut que les disciples de Platon considèrent quelques problèmes nouveaux de la dialectique. Les critiques d’Eudore manifestent le désir d’un ordre rigoureux, et elles posent des questions auxquelles la tradition herméneutique, culminant dans le magnifique commentaire de Simplicius, tentera de répondre. Le projet critique d’Eudore ne nous permet pas de parler d’un «ennemi d’Aristote», ni de (...) «polémique», mais on y voit bien pourquoi il préférait être reconnu comme un «académicien» plutôt qu’un péripatéticien. (shrink)

This paper explores the role of early imperial Peripatetics – in particular, Andronicus of Rhodes, Boethus of Sidon, Herminus, and Alexander – in the development of the canonical reading of the Categories influentially maintained by Porphyry. I investigate the common threads of Middle Platonist and Peripatetic views on the value of the Categories, focusing on the utility of the method of division (diairesis) for acquiring knowledge (epistêmê), and argue for a shared Peripatetic-Platonist consensus about the reasons why the Categories should (...) ground the philosophical curriculum. In particular, I suggest that Andronicus of Rhodes and Eudorus might have played a significant role in the development of this consensus. (shrink)

From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and (...) Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German. (shrink)

This paper focuses on the reception of Aristotle’s writings from 100 BC to early Neoplatonism. The 1stcentury BC is marked by a renaissance of interest in Aristotle’s acroamatic treatises, in connection to Andronicus’ editorial work. This is a well known fact, but it is worth noting that interpreters of Aristotle between the 1st century BC and the 1st century AD were only familiar with a limited set of treatises. The Academic Eudorus of Alexandria was a partial exception, since he (...) was probably acquainted with parts of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle’s exoteric dialogues remained a majour source for those interested in Aristotle well into the 2ndcentury AD. Finally, late-hellenistic compendia and handbooks provided second-hand information on Aristotle’s philosophy. It is only between the 2ndand the 3rdcenturies that the Peripatetic commentators developed a systematic reading of the whole corpus of Aristotle’s acroamatic treatises. Their work culminated with Alexander of Aphrodisias, whose exegesis laid the basis for the subsequent incorporation of Aristotle within Neoplatonism accomplished by Plotinus and Porphyry. (shrink)

The paper argues that ancient dogmatic Platonists, beginning with Antiochus, reconstructed Plato’s ethics in different ways, as a result of their different emphasis on parts of Plato’s work and often argued with each other about what Plato’s ethics actually was. This situation, it is argued, is due to the existence of different strands of ethical views found in Plato’s work itself, such as, for instance, the Protagoras and the Gorgias versus the central books of the Republic and the Philebus on (...) the question of what eudaimonia consists in. The paper argues against the thesis of Julia Annas, outlined in her Platonic Ethics Old and New, that ancient dogmatic Platonists considered the argument of the Republic as being essentially the same with that of all Platonic dialogues and that they unanimously represented Plato’s ethical position as the view that virtue is sufficient for happiness. The testimonies regarding the ethics of Platonists like Antiochus, Plutarch, Numenius, Taurus, or Atticus rather suggest a picture of variance and tension about the reconstruction of Plato’s ethics. Antiochus, Plutarch, and Taurus, for instance, are guided by the theory of the partite soul and maintain that for Plato emotions should be balanced by reason, a view they also find in Aristotle, whereas Eudorus and Atticus appear to favor the elimination of all emotions. Alcinous and, more systematically, Plotinus tend to reconcile and synthesize into a system the different views found in Plato’s dialogues, which brings them to attribute to Plato a complex ethical doctrine. This synthesis corroborates the evidence examined in the paper in support of the view that ancient Platonists recognized diverse strands of ethics in Plato and, far from being unanimous about what Plato’s ethics was, varied significantly in their reconstruction of it. (shrink)

Among the most characteristic motifs in Greek mythology is the sexual union of a god with a mortal woman and the resultant birth of a hero. The existence of hexameter poetry listing the women thus favoured – the famous women in the underworld in the eleventh book of the Odyssey, and above all theEoiai– is evidence of an interest in the women involved, not only in their heroic sons, and suggests that already at an early date the theme was the (...) object not merely of passive reception but of an active consciousness. TheEoiai, indeed, saw such unions as an integral part of an earlier and better age, when mortals and immortals were closer:ξυναὶ γὰρ τότε δαῖτες ἔσαν, ξυνοὶ δὲ θόωκοιἀθανάτων τε θεῶν καταθνητοῖς τ' ἀνθρώπων(fr. 1 Μ–W)But it was not to be supposed that such a potentially rich theme would receive a unitary treatment. Already in their first appearances – at least, the first appearances for us – many individual stories are clearly distinguished by their different circumstances. A common variable is the existence, the kind and the degree of difficulty experienced by the woman as a result of the encounter. Polymele, for instance, mother of Eudorus by Hermes atIliad16.179–92, has seemingly no difficulty in leaving her child to be brought up by her father while she goes on to marry a mortal husband. But suffering of some sort is perhaps more usual, and famous sufferers include Cassandra, punished for spurning Apollo's advances; Danae, first imprisoned by her father in a brazen tower to prevent her pregnancy, and then locked in a chest with her baby and set afloat on the waves; and Semele, destroyed when her lover Zeus appeared to her in his true form. Such different experiences could suggest further multiple versions of the same general theme, diverging especially in the consequences of the union (or attempted union) for the mortal partner. Even the same characters could potentially undergo quite different variants of the story; the chief constant is the unfailing popularity of the mythical motif. (shrink)

Mauro Bonazzi is well known among scholars of ancient philosophy for his many valuable contributions in the area of late ancient philosophy. His papers on Antiochus, Eudorus, Plutarch, and the Anonymous commentator of the Theaetetus are interesting, learned and thought provoking. In his new book he sets out to offer a synthetic overview of the history of Platonism from Antiochus to Plotinus. This is an extremely rich period of the history of Platonism. To begin with, we encounter as diverse (...) p... (shrink)

In late antiquity the work On the Nature of the Cosmos and of the Soul attributed to Timaeus of Locri was thought to be a Pythagorean text used by Plato when he wrote the Timaeus. The attribution, archaizing language, and similarity of contents of the work suggest this. However, the linguistic and philosophical anachronisms to be found in it show it to be a post-Platonic forgery. It summarizes the Timaeus, simplifying and "demythologizing" the dialogue in a didactic way. It also (...) on occasion departs enough from its source to constitute an interpretation of the dialogue. Baltes in his introduction notes that this is all done along lines characteristic of Middle Platonic treatments of Plato, and he suggests that the work may have been written by a pupil of Eudorus of Alexandria since it seems to depend on Eudorus’s interpretation of the Timaeus. Having introduced the work, Baltes then provides a line-by-line commentary in which he deals with philological questions, analyzes the sequence of thought, and attempts to determine for each passage the extent to which the work echoes the Timaeus or departs from it. In the latter case, he provides helpful references to parallel and possible source texts in Hellenistic philosophy. An index of terms would have made this valuable commentary more accessible. For the original Greek text we must turn to the edition published by W. Marg in the same series. Baltes’s commentary can be recommended to anyone interested in Plato’s Academy, in Middle Platonism, and in the subjects discussed in the Timaeus as understood and developed in Hellenistic philosophy.—D.O. (shrink)