{"_index":"sire","_id":"1058","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1058,"authors_free":[{"id":1607,"entry_id":1058,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":303,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rist, John M.","free_first_name":"John M.","free_last_name":"Rist","norm_person":{"id":303,"first_name":"John M.","last_name":"Rist","full_name":"Rist, John M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137060440","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides"},"abstract":"As long ago as 1928, Professor E. R. Dodds demonstrated the dependence of the One of Plotinus on an interpretation of the first hypothesis of the Parmenides. His demonstration has been universally accepted. But Dodds not only showed the dependence of Plotinus on the Parmenides but also offered an account of the history of the doctrine of the One between the late fourth century B.C. and the third century A.D. His view is that the first three hypotheses of the Parmenides were already treated in what we should call a Neoplatonic fashion by Moderatus, a Neopythagorean of the second half of the first century A.D.; further, that Moderatus was not the originator of this interpretation, whose origins can, in fact, be traced back through Eudorus (ca. 25 B.C.) and the Neopythagoreans of his day to the Old Academy.\r\n\r\nThough Dodds is somewhat unclear at this point, he seems to suggest that already before the time of Eudorus, the Parmenides was being interpreted in Neopythagorean fashion. In order to check this derivation, we should look at the three stages of it in detail. These stages are the Neopythagoreanism of Moderatus, the theories of Eudorus, and those of Speusippus and the Old Academy in general.\r\n\r\nIn opposition to Professor A. H. Armstrong, who used to hold that the One of Speusippus was less than Being, rather than \"beyond Being,\" Dr. Ph. Merlan has recently shown that the Aristotelian texts on which Armstrong's account was based are better interpreted in the light of chapter four of Iamblichus' De communi mathematica scientia. Merlan shows that the system of Speusippus is not an \"evolutionary\" one, and that Speusippus' One is beyond Being. Yet the system of Speusippus is a dualism; his One is not the cause of all and is thus, as we shall see, unlike the Neopythagorean One which Dodds regards as proto-Neoplatonic.\r\n\r\nWe may therefore leave Speusippus aside. His One can have affected Neoplatonism only very indirectly, if at all. [introduction p. 389-390]","btype":3,"date":"1962","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/n0sauehAwynXB03","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":303,"full_name":"Rist, John M.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1058,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association","volume":"93","issue":"","pages":"389\u2013401"}},"sort":["The Neoplatonic One and Plato\u2019s Parmenides"]}