| Title | Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Oxford |
| Publisher | Clarendon Press |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle’s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato’s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato’s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle’s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry’s view of Aristotle’s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. [author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0IXjzTTUHLJHqqx |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":150,"authors_free":[{"id":190,"entry_id":150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karaman\u014dl\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry","main_title":{"title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry"},"abstract":"This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato\u2019s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato\u2019s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle\u2019s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus\u2019s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry\u2019s view of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0IXjzTTUHLJHqqx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":150,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
| Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 97-120 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
| In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining such a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry’s estimation of Aristotle’s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists before Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be ‘commentaries’ in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and encourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views expressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of the evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be credited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then try to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle’s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle’s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N41MQStD4wulva1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining \r\nsuch a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry\u2019s estimation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists \r\nbefore Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be \u2018commentaries\u2019 in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and \r\nencourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views \r\nexpressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of \r\nthe evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be \r\ncredited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then \r\ntry to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle\u2019s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N41MQStD4wulva1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Oxford |
| Publisher | Clarendon Press |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle’s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle’s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato’s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato’s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle’s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus’s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry’s view of Aristotle’s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. [author’s abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0IXjzTTUHLJHqqx |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"150","_score":null,"_source":{"id":150,"authors_free":[{"id":190,"entry_id":150,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karaman\u014dl\u0113s","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry","main_title":{"title":"Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry"},"abstract":"This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle\u2019s philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle\u2019s philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato\u2019s doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato\u2019s philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle\u2019s testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus\u2019s interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry\u2019s view of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0IXjzTTUHLJHqqx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":150,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Clarendon Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry"]}
| Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
| Pages | 97-120 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
| Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
| Translator(s) |
In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining such a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry’s estimation of Aristotle’s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists before Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be ‘commentaries’ in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and encourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views expressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of the evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be credited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then try to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle’s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle’s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N41MQStD4wulva1 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_ignored":["booksection.book.abstract.keyword"],"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"In this paper I shall argue that Porphyry was the first Platonist philosopher to write commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Previous scholars have come close to maintaining \r\nsuch a view, but to my knowledge, this has never been expressly argued. They usually hold that Porphyry was the first of the Neoplatonists (ie. the Platonists after Plotinus) to write commentaries on Aristotle, but not the first of the entire Platonist tradition. One reason for this is that Porphyry\u2019s estimation of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy has not been sufficiently appreciated. In addition, I think, the particular nature of philosophical commentary, composed systematically in late antiquity by philosophers such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, or Iamblichus remains in need of clarification, as does its philosophical motivation. As a result, scholars have tended to credit several Platonists \r\nbefore Porphyry with the writing of commentaries on Aristotelian works, simply because they appear to have made various sorts of comments on one or more of his works. I will argue that these Platonists did not, however, produce commentaries of the sort that Porphyry did, which I consider to be \u2018commentaries\u2019 in the proper sense of the term. Their failure to do so, I will argue, owes to their particular shared philosophical background, one which, as I will argue, changes with Porphyry. In the first part of my paper (I) I will outline the difference between the various forms of commentary and the specific form of commentary written by Porphyry. I will claim that in the latter case the author sets out to write a commentary in order to facilitate and \r\nencourage its study and assist in its teaching. This presupposes acceptance of the views \r\nexpressed by the source text and implies an assertion of its authority. The examination of \r\nthe evidence concerning the Platonists before Porphyry shows that none of them can be \r\ncredited with a commentary on Aristotle of the sort written by Porphyry (II). I will then \r\ntry to explain why Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle in the first place (III), which leads me to conjecture that he considered Aristotle\u2019s views in the Categories (IV), the Physics (V), and on first principles (VI) compatible with those of Plato and also sufficiently philosophically valuable as to deserve serious study. I will conclude that Porphyry wrote commentaries on Aristotle because, given his interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s views, he accepted him as an authority next to Plato, and this represented something new in the Platonic tradition (VII). [introduction, p. 97]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N41MQStD4wulva1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AV77iy4WOXfGTHR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}