| Title | Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2013 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 63 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 199-208 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In this note I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories’earliest critics, a Stoic identified only as ‘Athenodorus’in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry and Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this ‘Athenodorus’with Athenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contem- porary with Andronicus of Rhodes.5 I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering this identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.68) is on philosophical grounds a compelling candidate for identi- fication with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes’Athenodorus is relatively unlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility that our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted work on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in the first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who observes that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). [p. 200] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KQ20eDoKvhJNwR4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"821","_score":null,"_source":{"id":821,"authors_free":[{"id":1222,"entry_id":821,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this note I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories\u2019earliest\r\ncritics, a Stoic identified only as \u2018Athenodorus\u2019in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry\r\nand Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this \u2018Athenodorus\u2019with\r\nAthenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contem-\r\nporary with Andronicus of Rhodes.5 I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering\r\nthis identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by\r\nDiogenes Laertius (7.68) is on philosophical grounds a compelling candidate for identi-\r\nfication with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes\u2019Athenodorus is relatively\r\nunlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility\r\nthat our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted\r\nwork on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in\r\nthe first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who\r\nobserves that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). [p. 200]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KQ20eDoKvhJNwR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":821,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"63","issue":"1","pages":"199-208"}},"sort":[2013]}
| Title | What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories" |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 69-108 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| One of the more provocative mysteries of later ancient philosophy is how Porphyiy came to situate the Categories of Aristotle at the outset of the nascent Neoplatonic curriculum. After all, the Categories tends to strike modem readers as a temperamentally counter-Platonic work, in which Aristotle grants ontological priority to perceptible subjects over intelligible genera and species, and we are led to wonder how a Platonist would be motivated to encourage its use as a general introduction to philosophy. The commentary tradition has left us with several layers of evidence for Porphyry's reasoning. First, in answer to the general question "Why should a philosopher study the Categories?" we have Porphyry's assertion that the ten Aristotelian schemata of predication carve the genera of being accurately at the joints (in Cat. 58,5-59,33), that this isomorphism between kind of simple referring terms and kinds of beings facilitates human knowledge, and that the philosopher's path therefore begins from the correct inteipretation of the Categories (see for example T9-11, discussed below). Second, in response to the question 'Why is the Categories compatible with Platonism?’, we have Porphyry’s account that the Categories introduces the student to the study of referring terms, which refer primarily to perceptible beings; after we have grasped the correct application of language to perceptibles, however, we are prepared to 'ascend by analogy’ to the study of intelligibles, which is Plato’s ambit. But this pedagogical solution, while it jibes elegantly with Porphyry!s decision to bracket metaphysical questions from introductory logic {cf. Isagoge 4,10-15, with Barnes 2003 ad loc.), also suggests a tension between two layers of Porphyry’s thought about die Categories. On the one hand, we are motivated to read the treatise because its divisions ofmeaningful language exhaustively and accurately picture being; on the other hand, we acknowledge that the text has nothing to say about die most important kind of being, namely intelligible being. In other words, Porphyry’s leading argument in favour of studying the Categories (its comprehensiveness) seems like a strange bedfellow for his leading argument in favour of its compatibility with Platonism (its restrictedness); and the source of this general tension is the first puzzle that I would like to explore in this essay. [Introduction, pp. 69 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/E7XiS12GrRNsPr9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1148","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1148,"authors_free":[{"id":1723,"entry_id":1148,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"One of the more provocative mysteries of later ancient philosophy is how Porphyiy came \r\nto situate the Categories of Aristotle at the outset of the nascent Neoplatonic curriculum.\r\nAfter all, the Categories tends to strike modem readers as a temperamentally counter-Platonic work, in which Aristotle grants ontological priority to perceptible subjects over intelligible genera and species, and we are led to wonder how a Platonist would be \r\nmotivated to encourage its use as a general introduction to philosophy. The commentary \r\ntradition has left us with several layers of evidence for Porphyry's reasoning. First, in answer to the general question \"Why should a philosopher study the Categories?\" we have \r\nPorphyry's assertion that the ten Aristotelian schemata of predication carve the genera of \r\nbeing accurately at the joints (in Cat. 58,5-59,33), that this isomorphism between kind of simple referring terms and kinds of beings facilitates human knowledge, and that the \r\nphilosopher's path therefore begins from the correct inteipretation of the Categories (see for example T9-11, discussed below). Second, in response to the question 'Why is the Categories compatible with Platonism?\u2019, we have Porphyry\u2019s account that the Categories introduces the student to the study of referring terms, which refer primarily to perceptible beings; after we have grasped the correct application of language to perceptibles, \r\nhowever, we are prepared to 'ascend by analogy\u2019 to the study of intelligibles, which is \r\nPlato\u2019s ambit. But this pedagogical solution, while it jibes elegantly with Porphyry!s \r\ndecision to bracket metaphysical questions from introductory logic {cf. Isagoge 4,10-15, with Barnes 2003 ad loc.), also suggests a tension between two layers of Porphyry\u2019s thought about die Categories. On the one hand, we are motivated to read the treatise \r\nbecause its divisions ofmeaningful language exhaustively and accurately picture being; on the other hand, we acknowledge that the text has nothing to say about die most important kind of being, namely intelligible being. In other words, Porphyry\u2019s leading \r\nargument in favour of studying the Categories (its comprehensiveness) seems like a strange bedfellow for his leading argument in favour of its compatibility with Platonism \r\n(its restrictedness); and the source of this general tension is the first puzzle that I would like to explore in this essay. [Introduction, pp. 69 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E7XiS12GrRNsPr9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1148,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"69-108"}},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 173-185 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justifijication for the study of Aristotle’s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus’ reasons for endorsing Porphyry’s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry’s. [authors abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OkODIHdy69Gu56Q |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"937","_score":null,"_source":{"id":937,"authors_free":[{"id":1390,"entry_id":937,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12","main_title":{"title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12"},"abstract":"Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justif\u0133ication for the study of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus\u2019 reasons for endorsing Porphyry\u2019s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry\u2019s. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OkODIHdy69Gu56Q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":937,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"173-185"}},"sort":[2012]}
| Title | What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 173-185 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justifijication for the study of Aristotle’s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus’ reasons for endorsing Porphyry’s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry’s. [authors abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OkODIHdy69Gu56Q |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"937","_score":null,"_source":{"id":937,"authors_free":[{"id":1390,"entry_id":937,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12","main_title":{"title":"What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12"},"abstract":"Simplicius in Cat. 12,10-13,12 presents an interesting justif\u0133ication for the study of Aristotle\u2019s Categories, based in Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics. I suggest that this passage could be regarded as a testimonium to Iamblichus\u2019 reasons for endorsing Porphyry\u2019s selection of the Categories as an introductory text of Platonic philosophy. These Iamblichean arguments, richly grounded in Neoplatonic metaphysics and psychology, may have exercised an influence comparable to Porphyry\u2019s. [authors abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OkODIHdy69Gu56Q","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":937,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"173-185"}},"sort":["What Has Aristotelian Dialectic to Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius on the Categories 12,10-13,12"]}
| Title | What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the "Categories" |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2012 |
| Journal | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 69-108 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
One of the more provocative mysteries of later ancient philosophy is how Porphyiy came
to situate the Categories of Aristotle at the outset of the nascent Neoplatonic curriculum.
After all, the Categories tends to strike modem readers as a temperamentally counter-Platonic work, in which Aristotle grants ontological priority to perceptible subjects over intelligible genera and species, and we are led to wonder how a Platonist would be
motivated to encourage its use as a general introduction to philosophy. The commentary
tradition has left us with several layers of evidence for Porphyry's reasoning. First, in answer to the general question "Why should a philosopher study the Categories?" we have
Porphyry's assertion that the ten Aristotelian schemata of predication carve the genera of
being accurately at the joints (in Cat. 58,5-59,33), that this isomorphism between kind of simple referring terms and kinds of beings facilitates human knowledge, and that the
philosopher's path therefore begins from the correct inteipretation of the Categories (see for example T9-11, discussed below). Second, in response to the question 'Why is the Categories compatible with Platonism?’, we have Porphyry’s account that the Categories introduces the student to the study of referring terms, which refer primarily to perceptible beings; after we have grasped the correct application of language to perceptibles,
however, we are prepared to 'ascend by analogy’ to the study of intelligibles, which is
Plato’s ambit. But this pedagogical solution, while it jibes elegantly with Porphyry!s
decision to bracket metaphysical questions from introductory logic {cf. Isagoge 4,10-15, with Barnes 2003 ad loc.), also suggests a tension between two layers of Porphyry’s thought about die Categories. On the one hand, we are motivated to read the treatise
because its divisions ofmeaningful language exhaustively and accurately picture being; on the other hand, we acknowledge that the text has nothing to say about die most important kind of being, namely intelligible being. In other words, Porphyry’s leading
argument in favour of studying the Categories (its comprehensiveness) seems like a strange bedfellow for his leading argument in favour of its compatibility with Platonism
(its restrictedness); and the source of this general tension is the first puzzle that I would like to explore in this essay. [Introduction, pp. 69 f.] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/E7XiS12GrRNsPr9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1148","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1148,"authors_free":[{"id":1723,"entry_id":1148,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"One of the more provocative mysteries of later ancient philosophy is how Porphyiy came \r\nto situate the Categories of Aristotle at the outset of the nascent Neoplatonic curriculum.\r\nAfter all, the Categories tends to strike modem readers as a temperamentally counter-Platonic work, in which Aristotle grants ontological priority to perceptible subjects over intelligible genera and species, and we are led to wonder how a Platonist would be \r\nmotivated to encourage its use as a general introduction to philosophy. The commentary \r\ntradition has left us with several layers of evidence for Porphyry's reasoning. First, in answer to the general question \"Why should a philosopher study the Categories?\" we have \r\nPorphyry's assertion that the ten Aristotelian schemata of predication carve the genera of \r\nbeing accurately at the joints (in Cat. 58,5-59,33), that this isomorphism between kind of simple referring terms and kinds of beings facilitates human knowledge, and that the \r\nphilosopher's path therefore begins from the correct inteipretation of the Categories (see for example T9-11, discussed below). Second, in response to the question 'Why is the Categories compatible with Platonism?\u2019, we have Porphyry\u2019s account that the Categories introduces the student to the study of referring terms, which refer primarily to perceptible beings; after we have grasped the correct application of language to perceptibles, \r\nhowever, we are prepared to 'ascend by analogy\u2019 to the study of intelligibles, which is \r\nPlato\u2019s ambit. But this pedagogical solution, while it jibes elegantly with Porphyry!s \r\ndecision to bracket metaphysical questions from introductory logic {cf. Isagoge 4,10-15, with Barnes 2003 ad loc.), also suggests a tension between two layers of Porphyry\u2019s thought about die Categories. On the one hand, we are motivated to read the treatise \r\nbecause its divisions ofmeaningful language exhaustively and accurately picture being; on the other hand, we acknowledge that the text has nothing to say about die most important kind of being, namely intelligible being. In other words, Porphyry\u2019s leading \r\nargument in favour of studying the Categories (its comprehensiveness) seems like a strange bedfellow for his leading argument in favour of its compatibility with Platonism \r\n(its restrictedness); and the source of this general tension is the first puzzle that I would like to explore in this essay. [Introduction, pp. 69 f.]","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/E7XiS12GrRNsPr9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1148,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"55","issue":"1","pages":"69-108"}},"sort":["What does Aristotle categorize? Semantics and the early peripatetic reading of the \"Categories\""]}
| Title | Which ‘Athenodorus’ commented on Aristotle's "Categories"? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2013 |
| Journal | The Classical Quarterly |
| Volume | 63 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 199-208 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Griffin, Michael J. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In this note I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories’earliest critics, a Stoic identified only as ‘Athenodorus’in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry and Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this ‘Athenodorus’with Athenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contem- porary with Andronicus of Rhodes.5 I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering this identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by Diogenes Laertius (7.68) is on philosophical grounds a compelling candidate for identi- fication with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes’Athenodorus is relatively unlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility that our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted work on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in the first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who observes that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). [p. 200] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KQ20eDoKvhJNwR4 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"821","_score":null,"_source":{"id":821,"authors_free":[{"id":1222,"entry_id":821,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":148,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","free_first_name":"Michael J.","free_last_name":"Griffin","norm_person":{"id":148,"first_name":"Michael J.","last_name":"Griffin","full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1065676603","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?","main_title":{"title":"Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"},"abstract":"In this note I would like to revisit the identity of one of the Categories\u2019earliest\r\ncritics, a Stoic identified only as \u2018Athenodorus\u2019in the pages of Dexippus, Porphyry\r\nand Simplicius. There is a strong consensus identifying this \u2018Athenodorus\u2019with\r\nAthenodorus Calvus, a tutor of Octavian and correspondent of Cicero, roughly contem-\r\nporary with Andronicus of Rhodes.5 I want to suggest several reasons for reconsidering\r\nthis identification. In particular, I want to argue that a certain Athenodorus mentioned by\r\nDiogenes Laertius (7.68) is on philosophical grounds a compelling candidate for identi-\r\nfication with the critic of the Categories, and that Diogenes\u2019Athenodorus is relatively\r\nunlikely to be Calvus. As an alternative to Calvus, I tentatively advance the possibility\r\nthat our Athenodorus may belong to a generation of Stoic philosophers who conducted\r\nwork on the Categories in the Hellenistic period, prior to the activity of Andronicus in\r\nthe first century, and under the title Before the Topics (see Simpl. in Cat. 379.9, who\r\nobserves that Andronicus of Rhodes was aware of this title and rejected it). [p. 200]","btype":3,"date":"2013","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KQ20eDoKvhJNwR4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":148,"full_name":"Griffin, Michael J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":821,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Quarterly","volume":"63","issue":"1","pages":"199-208"}},"sort":["Which \u2018Athenodorus\u2019 commented on Aristotle's \"Categories\"?"]}