| 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 to be commenting upon or clarifying the text o f 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 o f the scale we are dealing with the emergence o f exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions - eg. 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. [p. 49] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MH2yCoPHJ3hq5XF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"971","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_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 \r\ntradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme \r\n\u2018Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition\u2019 an obvious choice of topic has been to \r\ndiscuss the works of authors who explicitly declare to be commenting upon or clarifying the \r\ntext o f an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to \r\nclarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary as we usually see it must have had its \r\nprecursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the \r\nTimaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers \r\nwhose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \u2018commentary tradition\u2019 . Here \r\nthings are less clear and well-defined in that at this end o f the scale we are dealing with the \r\nemergence o f exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions - eg. what a \r\ncommentary or a commentator is - would no longer have an obvious value as starting points \r\nand that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \u2018what \r\nis a commentary?\u2019, \u2018what form did the interpretation of texts take?\u2019 or \u2018when do \r\ncommentaries emerge?\u2019) require a fresh look. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MH2yCoPHJ3hq5XF","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ocEqA4hdMXnPzv","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 to be commenting upon or clarifying the text o f 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 o f the scale we are dealing with the emergence o f exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions - eg. 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. [p. 49] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MH2yCoPHJ3hq5XF |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"971","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_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 \r\ntradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme \r\n\u2018Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition\u2019 an obvious choice of topic has been to \r\ndiscuss the works of authors who explicitly declare to be commenting upon or clarifying the \r\ntext o f an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to \r\nclarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary as we usually see it must have had its \r\nprecursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the \r\nTimaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers \r\nwhose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \u2018commentary tradition\u2019 . Here \r\nthings are less clear and well-defined in that at this end o f the scale we are dealing with the \r\nemergence o f exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions - eg. what a \r\ncommentary or a commentator is - would no longer have an obvious value as starting points \r\nand that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \u2018what \r\nis a commentary?\u2019, \u2018what form did the interpretation of texts take?\u2019 or \u2018when do \r\ncommentaries emerge?\u2019) require a fresh look. [p. 49]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MH2yCoPHJ3hq5XF","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.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ocEqA4hdMXnPzv","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"]}