{"_index":"sire","_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. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/F0bFT161R2MXdut","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]}

{"_index":"sire","_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]}