Proclus was one of the last great philosophers of Antiquity. His legacy in the cultural history of the west can hardly be overestimated. This book is the most comprehensive guide to Proclus' life, thought and legacy that is currently available.
Aristotle's criticism of Platonic Forms in the Metaphysics has been a major source for the understanding and developments of the theory of Forms in later Antiquity. One of the cases in point is Aristotle's argument, in Metaphysics I 9, 990b22-991a2, against Forms of non-substances. In this paper, I will first provide a careful analysis of this passage. Next, I will discuss how the argument has been interpreted - and refuted - by the fifth-century Neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus. This interpretation has (...) played an important role in the broader context of the Neoplatonic debates on the range of Plato's theory of Forms, which was one of the traditional problems discussed about the Forms in later Platonism. (shrink)
the famous passage at the end of the sixth book of the Republic, in which Socrates compares our cognitive states to different sections of a single line, is often read as a "map" of Plato's epistemology. Symbolizing the different levels of cognition, the divided line may be taken to present a forceful image of the various stages that the soul must traverse in its quest for true knowledge. Its reputation as a snapshot of the epistemology of Plato's mature dialogues makes (...) the divided line, despite, or perhaps because of, persisting disagreements over its interpretation, one of the most vexed passages of the Platonic corpus.In the ancient readings of the divided line, many of the modern exegetical debates... (shrink)
Unlike the _Phaedo_ itself, its reception in Antiquity remains little studied. By examining the extant commentaries, their sources, and the dialogue’s presence in the reflections of ancient thinkers both inside and outside the Platonic tradition, this volume aims to reconstruct its ancient history.
Ambrosianus B 165 sup., a 14th-cent. Constantinopolitan manuscript containing Proclus' In Parmenidem, was once owned by the Cardinal Bessarion, who has read, corrected and annotated the text with remarkable care. In this contribution, we provide an analysis of Bessarion's work on this manuscript, thus offering a case-study of his philological method. We also discuss some quotations from this text in Bessarion's works, which testify to the importance of his knowledge of Proclus for his own writings. In addition, Bessarion's Greek scholia (...) on books II and III of Proclus' commentary are edited here for the first time. (shrink)