| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
| We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
| Pages | 49-71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
| Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}