Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator, 2021
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume 24
Issue 1
Pages 210-241
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century, and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius, changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal validity.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":[2021]}

Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter, 2018
By: Gabor, Gary, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2018
Published in Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Pages 569-579
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gabor, Gary
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo­tle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim­plicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En­chiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work­ing picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, 2018
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2018
Publication Place Boston
Publisher Brill
Series Brill's companions to classical reception
Volume 13
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2018]}

Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion, 2014
By: Lawrence, Marilynn, Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.), Tarrant, Harold (Ed.)
Title Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2014
Published in The Neoplatonic Socrates
Pages 127-142
Categories no categories
Author(s) Lawrence, Marilynn
Editor(s) Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold
Translator(s)
This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OqSxOrXo1qIxtmA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8jJu0dLBrHl9uLt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

The Neoplatonic Socrates, 2014
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title The Neoplatonic Socrates
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2014
Publication Place Philadelphia
Publisher University of Pennsylvania Press
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates "really" was—the true history of his activities and beliefs—has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods. In The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity. Contributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, François Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant. [official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"344","_score":null,"_source":{"id":344,"authors_free":[{"id":2072,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2073,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates"},"abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2014]}

Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories", 2008
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories"
Type Article
Language English
Date 2008
Journal Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume 64
Issue 3
Pages 583-595
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":473,"authors_free":[{"id":638,"entry_id":473,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle\u2019s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label \u201canti-Aristotelian\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSO0JNPufdqhWkk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":473,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Laval th\u00e9ologique et philosophique","volume":"64","issue":"3","pages":"583-595"}},"sort":[2008]}

Reading Plato in antiquity, 2006
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)
Title Reading Plato in antiquity
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2006
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury Academic
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)
This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"196","_score":null,"_source":{"id":196,"authors_free":[{"id":252,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":253,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Reading Plato in antiquity"},"abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle, 2006
By: Sorabji, Richard, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)
Title The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2006
Published in Reading Plato in antiquity
Pages 185-193
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)
In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization. Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff). As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one. There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear. In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle. I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"916","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2006]}

More on Zeno's "Forty logoi", 1990
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title More on Zeno's "Forty logoi"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Illinois Classical Studies
Volume 15
Issue 1
Pages 23-37
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that "Zeno" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato’s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi “at least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.” It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself. I believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon’s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery. Secondly, despite Proclus’ apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the “first hypothesis of the first logos” at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be. Thirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus’ independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows. The total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes. Furthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":408,"authors_free":[{"id":546,"entry_id":408,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\"","main_title":{"title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""},"abstract":"In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that \"Zeno\" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato\u2019s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi \u201cat least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.\u201d It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.\r\n\r\nI believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon\u2019s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.\r\n\r\nSecondly, despite Proclus\u2019 apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the \u201cfirst hypothesis of the first logos\u201d at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.\r\n\r\nThirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus\u2019 independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.\r\n\r\nThe total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YLhtdTiVc9rnvdt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":408,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"15","issue":"1","pages":"23-37"}},"sort":[1990]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion, 2014
By: Lawrence, Marilynn, Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.), Tarrant, Harold (Ed.)
Title Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’s Emcheiridion
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2014
Published in The Neoplatonic Socrates
Pages 127-142
Categories no categories
Author(s) Lawrence, Marilynn
Editor(s) Layne, Danielle A. , Tarrant, Harold
Translator(s)
This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction/conclusion]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1157","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1157,"authors_free":[{"id":1730,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":86,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn","free_first_name":"Marilynn","free_last_name":"Lawrence","norm_person":{"id":86,"first_name":"Marilynn ","last_name":"Lawrence","full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1152956507","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2074,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2075,"entry_id":1157,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion","main_title":{"title":"Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"},"abstract":"This text explores the problem of akrasia, or the phenomenon of knowingly erring, within Socratic philosophy, and its relationship to Socratic intellectualism. The denial of akrasia by Socrates and Aristotle's response to it have been discussed by scholars, with interpretations and critiques of the argument that no one willingly chooses to do what they know is wrong. Simplicius attempted to reconcile these differing views and harmonize the phenomenon of akrasia while preserving Socrates' intellectualist position through his commentary on Epictetus's Encheiridion. The text concludes with Simplicius's reflections on the antiphilosophical culture of his time and the importance of philosophical education. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OqSxOrXo1qIxtmA","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":86,"full_name":"Lawrence, Marilynn ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1157,"section_of":344,"pages":"127-142","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":344,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant_Layne_2014","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2014","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2014","abstract":"","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8jJu0dLBrHl9uLt","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Akrasia and Enkrateia in Simplicius\u2019s Commentary on Epictetus\u2019s Emcheiridion"]}

Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity, 2018
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2018
Publication Place Boston
Publisher Brill
Series Brill's companions to classical reception
Volume 13
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: ‘Early Developments in Reception’ (four chapters); ‘Early Imperial Reception’ (nine chapters); and ‘Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism’ (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. 

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"259","_score":null,"_source":{"id":259,"authors_free":[{"id":1822,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2370,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2371,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2372,"entry_id":259,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Danielle A. ","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"},"abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","btype":4,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QcrfTiTc1S1E4gY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity"]}

Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories", 2008
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the "Categories"
Type Article
Language English
Date 2008
Journal Laval théologique et philosophique
Volume 64
Issue 3
Pages 583-595
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"473","_score":null,"_source":{"id":473,"authors_free":[{"id":638,"entry_id":473,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\"","main_title":{"title":"Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""},"abstract":"The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle\u2019s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century BC. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label \u201canti-Aristotelian\u201d or \u201cpolemical\u201d, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wSO0JNPufdqhWkk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":473,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Laval th\u00e9ologique et philosophique","volume":"64","issue":"3","pages":"583-595"}},"sort":["Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the \"Categories\""]}

Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator, 2021
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title Formal Argument and Olympiodorus’ Development as a Plato-Commentator
Type Article
Language English
Date 2021
Journal History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Volume 24
Issue 1
Pages 210-241
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,
and both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school’s
attitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,
changed markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist
lectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their
construction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of
demonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the
text lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority
continues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal
validity.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1464","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1464,"authors_free":[{"id":2537,"entry_id":1464,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"},"abstract":"Olympiodorus led the Platonist school of philosophy at Alexandria for several decades in the sixth century,\r\nand both Platonic and Aristotelian commentaries ascribed to him survive. During this time the school\u2019s\r\nattitude to the teaching of Aristotelian syllogistic, originally owing something to Ammonius,\r\nchanged markedly, with an early tendency to reinforce the teaching of syllogistic even in Platonist\r\nlectures giving way to a greater awareness of its limitations. The vocabulary for arguments and their\r\nconstruction becomes far commoner than the language of syllogistic and syllogistic figures, and also of\r\ndemonstration. I discuss the value of these changes for the dating of certain works, especially where the\r\ntext lectured on does not demand different emphases. The commitment to argument rather than to authority\r\ncontinues, but a greater emphasis eventually falls on the establishment of the premises than on formal\r\nvalidity.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/5sE7J9nmDwQKOuK","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1464,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis","volume":"24","issue":"1","pages":"210-241"}},"sort":["Formal Argument and Olympiodorus\u2019 Development as a Plato-Commentator"]}

More on Zeno's "Forty logoi", 1990
By: Tarrant, Harold
Title More on Zeno's "Forty logoi"
Type Article
Language English
Date 1990
Journal Illinois Classical Studies
Volume 15
Issue 1
Pages 23-37
Categories no categories
Author(s) Tarrant, Harold
Editor(s)
Translator(s)
In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that "Zeno" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato’s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi “at least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.” It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.

I believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon’s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.

Secondly, despite Proclus’ apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the “first hypothesis of the first logos” at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.

Thirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus’ independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.

The total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.

Furthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"408","_score":null,"_source":{"id":408,"authors_free":[{"id":546,"entry_id":408,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\"","main_title":{"title":"More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""},"abstract":"In Illinois Classical Studies 11 (1986), 35-41, John Dillon presents material from Proclus' Commentary on the Parmenides in which he makes it clear that Proclus knew of a work purporting to be by Zeno, which contained forty logoi. This work was allegedly the one that \"Zeno\" had just read at the opening of the main narrative of Plato\u2019s Parmenides (127c), and which Socrates subsequently challenges (127d-130a). Dillon presents the same material in his introduction to Proclus' In Parmenidem. Its relevance is no longer confined to the Neoplatonists, as Dillon believes that it is possible the Forty Logoi \u201cat least contained genuine material, though perhaps worked over at a later date.\u201d It threatens to have implications both for Eleatic studies and for the interpretation of the Parmenides itself.\r\n\r\nI believe that the issue must be tackled again, not merely because of Dillon\u2019s judiciously aporetic conclusion, but because I fear that there are important points which have not yet been addressed. Firstly, from a passage not included in Dillon's survey but which seems to me to be relevant, it appears that the allegedly Zenonian work was known to much earlier, pre-Plotinian interpreters, who considered it important for the interpretation of the hypotheses of the second part of the Parmenides, at least down to 155e and possibly beyond. This increases the potential importance of the work, as well as marginally increasing its claim to be genuine; at least it was not a Neoplatonic forgery.\r\n\r\nSecondly, despite Proclus\u2019 apparent familiarity with it, the work does not seem to clarify Plato's puzzling reference to the \u201cfirst hypothesis of the first logos\u201d at 127d7. One would have expected that consultation of the relevant text of Zeno would have done so, and this might be considered an obstacle to believing that the work is what it purports to be.\r\n\r\nThirdly, there is a significant question of Proclus\u2019 independence. There are some troubling features about the historical material in this commentary which are absent from his Timaeus commentary, for instance. Most relevant here is the rather scrappy way in which Parmenides himself has been quoted. On p. 665, the three short quotations from B8 are out of order; on p. 708, two of the same snippets from B8 have B5 (whose genuineness is less than certain) inserted between them. On p. 1152, we encounter seven tiny quotations, with the five from B8 this time being in the correct order, but with an impossible version of B3 inserted between B8.30 and B8.35-36; B4.1 then follows.\r\n\r\nThe total number of lines quoted in whole or in part (excluding uncertain allusions) amounts to only 21 (9 of these from B8.25-36), but some lines appear three or more times (B8.4, 25, 29, 44). It is clear that Proclus remembered certain favorite phrases, and one doubts whether he was referring to any text, except possibly at p. 1134, where a passage of four lines is quoted. Even here, either Proclus or the scribes have failed us in the last line. Likewise, there is no need to suppose that he is referring at any point to the alleged work of Zeno. Certainly, he knows something about it, and he may well have had access to it and read it in the past. But I do not find anything in the text requiring that he consult the work as he writes.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, if we bear in mind that earlier interpreters had made use of the Forty Logoi, much of Proclus' material on the work could plausibly be attributed to borrowings from earlier commentaries. One commentary he certainly used is that of Plutarch of Athens, whose work on earlier interpreters Proclus evidently admired (p. 1061.18-20). We should not allow any admiration for Proclus as a philosopher, or even for the doxographic material in other commentaries, to lead us to suppose that his reports will be either original or reliable in this commentary. [introduction p. 23-24]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YLhtdTiVc9rnvdt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":408,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Illinois Classical Studies","volume":"15","issue":"1","pages":"23-37"}},"sort":["More on Zeno's \"Forty logoi\""]}

Reading Plato in antiquity, 2006
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)
Title Reading Plato in antiquity
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2006
Publication Place London
Publisher Bloomsbury Academic
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)
This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"196","_score":null,"_source":{"id":196,"authors_free":[{"id":252,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":253,"entry_id":196,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","main_title":{"title":"Reading Plato in antiquity"},"abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","btype":4,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Reading Plato in antiquity"]}

Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter, 2018
By: Gabor, Gary, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Renaud, François (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2018
Published in Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity
Pages 569-579
Categories no categories
Author(s) Gabor, Gary
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Renaud, François , Baltzly, Dirk , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo­tle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim­plicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus -  the Physics, De Caelo,  Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En­chiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work­ing picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1206","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1206,"authors_free":[{"id":1782,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2357,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","free_first_name":"Harold ","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2367,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":452,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","free_first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","free_last_name":"Renaud","norm_person":{"id":452,"first_name":"Fran\u00e7ois","last_name":"Renaud","full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173336922","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2368,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2369,"entry_id":1206,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A. ","free_first_name":"Layne","free_last_name":"Danielle A. ","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"},"abstract":"Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo\u00adtle. How he reads other authors though - with the possible exception of the Presocratics - is less well studied. In this chapter myaim is to examine Sim\u00adplicius' interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius' views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato's life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius' extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus - the Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En\u00adchiridion - nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato's works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work\u00ading picture of how Simplicius read him. [Introduction, pp. 569 f.]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0vKTn6WTHOuGWRm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":452,"full_name":"Renaud, Fran\u00e7ois","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1206,"section_of":259,"pages":"569-579","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":259,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill's Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Plato in Antiquity offers a comprehensive account of the ways in which ancient readers responded to Plato, as philosopher, as author, and more generally as a central figure in the intellectual heritage of Classical Greece, from his death in the fourth century BCE until the Platonist and Aristotelian commentators in the sixth century CE. The volume is divided into three sections: \u2018Early Developments in Reception\u2019 (four chapters); \u2018Early Imperial Reception\u2019 (nine chapters); and \u2018Early Christianity and Late Antique Platonism\u2019 (eighteen chapters). Sectional introductions cover matters of importance that could not easily be covered in dedicated chapters. The book demonstrates the great variety of approaches to and interpretations of Plato among even his most dedicated ancient readers, offering some salutary lessons for his modern readers too. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XeXBujnRbfSUKYF","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":259,"pubplace":"Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Brill's companions to classical reception","volume":"13","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's last interpreter"]}

The Neoplatonic Socrates, 2014
By: Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Layne, Danielle A. (Ed.)
Title The Neoplatonic Socrates
Type Edited Book
Language English
Date 2014
Publication Place Philadelphia
Publisher University of Pennsylvania Press
Categories no categories
Author(s)
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Layne, Danielle A.
Translator(s)
Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates "really" was—the true history of his activities and beliefs—has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.

In The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.

Contributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, François Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.
[official abstract]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"344","_score":null,"_source":{"id":344,"authors_free":[{"id":2072,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2073,"entry_id":344,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":202,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","free_first_name":"Danielle A.","free_last_name":"Layne","norm_person":{"id":202,"first_name":"Danielle A.","last_name":"Layne","full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1068033177","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Socrates"},"abstract":"Today the name Socrates invokes a powerful idealization of wisdom and nobility that would surprise many of his contemporaries, who excoriated the philosopher for corrupting youth. The problem of who Socrates \"really\" was\u2014the true history of his activities and beliefs\u2014has long been thought insoluble, and most recent Socratic studies have instead focused on reconstructing his legacy and tracing his ideas through other philosophical traditions. But this scholarship has neglected to examine closely a period of philosophy that has much to reveal about what Socrates stood for and how he taught: the Neoplatonic tradition of the first six centuries C.E., which at times decried or denied his importance yet relied on his methods.\r\n\r\nIn The Neoplatonic Socrates, leading scholars in classics and philosophy address this gap by examining Neoplatonic attitudes toward the Socratic method, Socratic love, Socrates's divine mission and moral example, and the much-debated issue of moral rectitude. Collectively, they demonstrate the importance of Socrates for the majority of Neoplatonists, a point that has often been questioned owing to the comparative neglect of surviving commentaries on the Alcibiades, Gorgias, Phaedo, and Phaedrus, in favor of dialogues dealing explicitly with metaphysical issues. Supplemented with a contextualizing introduction and a substantial appendix detailing where evidence for Socrates can be found in the extant literature, The Neoplatonic Socrates makes a clear case for the significant place Socrates held in the education and philosophy of late antiquity.\r\n\r\nContributors: Crystal Addey, James M. Ambury, John F. Finamore, Michael Griffin, Marilynn Lawrence, Danielle A. Layne, Christina-Panagiota Manolea, Fran\u00e7ois Renaud, Geert Roskam, Harold Tarrant.\r\n[official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/snzmSDTs2gXuRXn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":202,"full_name":"Layne, Danielle A.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":344,"pubplace":"Philadelphia","publisher":"University of Pennsylvania Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The Neoplatonic Socrates"]}

The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle, 2006
By: Sorabji, Richard, Tarrant, Harold (Ed.), Baltzly, Dirk (Ed.)
Title The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle
Type Book Section
Language English
Date 2006
Published in Reading Plato in antiquity
Pages 185-193
Categories no categories
Author(s) Sorabji, Richard
Editor(s) Tarrant, Harold , Baltzly, Dirk
Translator(s)
In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.

Harmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23–32). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).

As an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle’s categories from Plotinus’ objections in Enneads VI.1–3. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle’s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle’s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7–8, 58.5–7, and 91.19–27) that Aristotle’s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle’s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization—whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian—ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle’s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle’s human soul into an immortal one.

There can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.

In fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.

I should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]

{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"916","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":916,"authors_free":[{"id":1351,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1352,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":122,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Tarrant, Harold","free_first_name":"Harold","free_last_name":"Tarrant","norm_person":{"id":122,"first_name":"Harold ","last_name":"Tarrant","full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132040077","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1353,"entry_id":916,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":107,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","free_first_name":"Dirk","free_last_name":"Baltzly","norm_person":{"id":107,"first_name":"Dirk","last_name":"Baltzly","full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1150414960","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"},"abstract":"In Neoplatonism, though not in Aristotelianism, Plato and Aristotle are transformed in a variety of different ways. The transformation is partly driven by a wish to harmonize Plato and Aristotle, but only partly. There is less effort to harmonize the two in some commentators than in others, and on some issues, as we shall see, there is less harmonization among our commentators than there was in the Middle Platonism of an earlier period. Further, the transformation of views is driven by other factors besides harmonization.\r\n\r\nHarmonization is most marked in Porphyry and Ammonius. It seems to be least favored by Syrianus and Proclus. Simplicius says that the good commentator should find Plato and Aristotle in harmony on most points (In Cat. 7.23\u201332). The presumption for a Neoplatonist is that, in the case of disharmony, Plato will be right. However, this presumption is reversed by a late commentator, Olympiodorus, who backs Aristotle against Plato on the definition of relatives (In Cat. 112.19ff).\r\n\r\nAs an example of harmonization, Porphyry, on the standard interpretation, defended Aristotle\u2019s categories from Plotinus\u2019 objections in Enneads VI.1\u20133. Plotinus accepted only four of Aristotle\u2019s ten categories for classifying the world perceived by the senses, and even then with heavy qualifications. He complained that Aristotle\u2019s categories left out the world of intelligible Forms from which the perceptible world derived. Sensible qualities, for example, are only shadows of the activities of intelligible Forms. Porphyry replied (In Cat. 57.7\u20138, 58.5\u20137, and 91.19\u201327) that Aristotle\u2019s categories are not meant to be exhaustive. They are only intended to distinguish words insofar as they signify things, and words are chiefly used to speak about sensibles. For that limited task, the categories are to be valued. Porphyry thus made Aristotle\u2019s categories forever acceptable to Platonism. Hereafter, it became increasingly useful to reinforce what I regard as the myth of harmony in the face of Christian charges that pagan philosophers contradicted each other. There was an irony in this, because the harmonization\u2014whose motive was thus partly anti-Christian\u2014ended in the thirteenth century by helping Thomas Aquinas present Aristotle as safe for Christianity. This assimilation to Plato had turned Aristotle\u2019s God from a thinker into a Creator and Aristotle\u2019s human soul into an immortal one.\r\n\r\nThere can, however, be more than one approach toward the harmonization of Plato and Aristotle. Lloyd Gerson, in this volume, offers the most thoroughgoing modern attempt to argue that it is basically correct. If, as I have supposed, it is not, the question arises whether pressure toward a false harmonization would be bad for philosophy. Having to convince Christians that Plato and Aristotle agreed with each other on almost everything would surely lead to a loss of their wonderful insights. But in fact, it gave a distinctive character, interesting in its own right, to Neoplatonism. Curiously, it also led to an even closer reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle, because their texts had to be read very closely indeed if one was going to argue that what they really meant was something different from what might first appear.\r\n\r\nIn fact, the pressure to harmonize proved a valuable stimulus to the imagination in the Greek Neoplatonist commentators. They took Plato to postulate a changeless and timeless world of divine Platonic Forms, and they had to think out how such a world would relate to the temporal, changing world described by Aristotle.\r\n\r\nI should now like to look at some examples of what happened to the views of Plato and Aristotle in Neoplatonism. I shall ask what factors besides harmonization are at work, whether Plato is transformed in the process as much as Aristotle, whether the harmonizations are hostile or friendly to Aristotle, and where the transformations proved important for subsequent philosophy. [introduction p. 185-186]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eWLLcrq58WWLfJm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":122,"full_name":"Tarrant, Harold ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":107,"full_name":"Baltzly, Dirk","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":916,"section_of":196,"pages":"185-193","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":196,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Reading Plato in antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Tarrant2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"This important collection of original essays is the first to concentrate at length on how the ancients responded to the challenge of reading and interpreting Plato, primarily between 100 BC and AD, edited by Lloyd Gerson, University of Toronto; 600. It incorporates the fruits of recent research into late antique philosophy, in particular its approach to hermeneutical problems. While a number of prominent figures, including Apuleius, Galen, Plotinus, Porphyry and lamblichus, receive detailed attention, several essays concentrate on the important figure of Proclus, in whom Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato reaches it most impressive, most surprising and most challenging form. The essays appear in chronological of their focal interpreters, giving a sense of the development of Platonist exegesis in this period. Reflecting their devotion to a common theme, the essays have been carefully edited and are presented with a composite bibliography and indices.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PFetB36hpbaF0VD","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":196,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Transformation of Plato and Aristotle"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1