Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:20:52.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Platonist readings of Aristotle1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

H. J. Blumenthal
H. J. Blumenthal
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The first point I should make is that ‘Platonist readings’ in the context of this paper means the reading of Aristotle by Neoplatonist interpreters who were armed with powerful Platonic prejudices. If I have avoided starting with the description ‘Neoplatonist’ that is because the philosophers involved would not so have described themselves. Notoriously they thought that they were Platonists, and, moreover, Platonists like Plato himself. This might be thought to be pointless reiteration of what is ‘allgemein bekannt’ – if not well-known – but it does have some bearing on the present subject, for it meant that the commentators were trying to find in Aristotle the thought of Plato as they understood it. Had they thought of themselves as ‘Neoplatonists’, with a full historical consciousness of the implications of that term, and, in particular, an awareness of how some parts of Plato's thought had, in the course of the Platonic tradition, been thoroughly Aristotelianised, they could not have approached Aristotle in the way that they did.

At this stage it might be as well to set out a few facts and also some assumptions which I shall try to prove, or illustrate, by looking at a few samples of the late Greek interpretation of Aristotle.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 27 , 1981, pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1981

Footnotes

1 Unless otherwise specified all references to Aristotle are to the de Anima and all unspecified references to the Aristotelian commentators to their de Anima commentaries The commentators are cited by page and line of the Berlin Academy edition.

References

NOTES

2. Themistius is to be excluded from this group, notwithstanding certain Platonist sympathies, cf. my ‘Themistius, the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle?’, in Arktouros: Hellenic Studies presented to Bernard M. W. Knox (1979) 391–400Google Scholar.

3. Cf. Asclepius, , in Metaph. 166.35–6Google Scholar, Simplic., in Phys. 1249.12–13Google Scholar:, I Düring, Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition, Stud. Gr. et Lat. Gothoburgensia 5 (1957) 332–6Google Scholar.

4. Cf. Cic. Acad. 1.4.17.

5. Cf. e. g. Simplic, in de Caelo 454. 23–9.

6. Cf. ‘Neoplatonic elements in the de Anima commentaries’, Phronesis 21 (1976) 64–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, hereafter ‘Neoplatonic elements’.

7. See n. 2.

8. Cf. Praechter, K.'s classic study, ‘Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus’, in Genethliakon C. Robert (1910) esp. 144–55Google Scholar, reprinted in Kleine Schriften. ed. Dörrie, H. (1973)Google Scholar, and his RE articles on Hierocles and Simphcius; see further the references in Hadot, I., Le problème du Néoplatonisme alexandrin Hiéroclès et Simplicius (1978) 12–13Google Scholar.

9. Cf. Saffrey, H.-D., ‘Le Chretien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l'école d'Alexandrie au VIe siècle’, REG 67 (1954) 396–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the list of Proclus’ disciples in Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne, ed. Saffrey, H.-D. and Westerink, L. G., I (1968) xlix–livGoogle Scholar.

10. See n. 8; cf. also the reservations already expressed by Lloyd, A. C. in The Cambridge History of later Greek and early medieval philosophy, ed. Armstrong, A. H. (1967) 314–16Google Scholar.

11. ‘The last days of the Academy at Athens’, PCPS n. s. 15 (1969) 9Google Scholar See too Saffrey (n. 9) 399-401, and the qualifications made by Westerink, , Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic philosophy (1962) xi–xiiiGoogle Scholar.

12. Cf. Plotinus 5.1.810-14, Proclus, in Alc. 227.21–2.

13. ‘Neoplatonic elements’ 72-9.

14. [Philop] 535.2-19.

15. These problems were the most frequently treated, cf. Moraux, P., ‘Le de Anima dans la tradition grecque Quelques aspects de l'nterprétation du traité, de Théophraste à Thémistius’, in Aristotle on mind and the senses, Proc. of the seventh Symposium Aristotelicum, ed. Lloyd, G. E. R. and Owen, G. E. L. (1978) 283Google Scholar, on the controversy about νοῦς cf. ‘Neoplatonic elements 73-7.

16. Cf. e. g. Plot. 4.7.85. 2-3 and my Plotinus' psychology (1971) 12–13Google Scholar; Verbeke, G., ‘Les critiques de Plotin contre l'entéléchisme d'Aristote essai d'interprétation de l'Enn 4.7.85’, in Philomathes. Studies and essays in the humanities in memory of P. Merlan, ed. Palmer, R. B. and Hammerton-Kelly, R. (1971) 199Google Scholar and n. 15.

17. Cf. Plotinus' psychology 112-33 and my ‘Nous and Soul in Plotinus some problems of demarcation’, in Atti del convegno internazionale sul tema Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in oriente e in occidente, Rome, 5–9.10.1970Google Scholar, Accademia nazionale dei lincei Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura 198 (1974) 217–19Google Scholar; for another view see Szlezák, T. A., Platon und Aristoteles in der Nuslehre Plotins (1979) 170–98Google Scholar.

18. Cf. e. g. Wallis, R. T., Neoplatonism (1972) 130–2Google Scholar.

19. For the earlier Neoplatonists cf. esp. Hadot, P., Porphyre et Victorinus (1968) IGoogle Scholar, ch. 5.

20. De Mem. 450a 9-14; de Somn. 455a 12-26, for a recent summary of views see Sorabji, R. R. K., Aristotle on memory (1972) 74–6Google Scholar.

21. By Bossier, F. and Steel, C., ‘Priscianus Lydus en de “in de Anima” van pseudo(?)-Simplicius’ TPh 34 (1972) 761–822Google Scholar, who find both stylistic and doctrinal differences from the other works of Simplicius; the presence of the latter is denied by I. Hadot (n. 8) 193-202.

22. Cf. further Plotinus' psychology (n. 16) 70-2.

23. Cf. Schwyzer, H.-R., ‘Zu Plotins Interpretation von Platons Timaeus 35A’ RhM (1935) 363–8Google Scholar.

24. Cf. e.g. Plot. 4.1; Proclus, , El. Th. 195Google Scholar.

25. For a fuller discussion see ‘Neoplatonic elements’ 83-4.

26. See n. 16.

27. Thus, e.g. Simplic. 1.14-20.

28. Cf. my ‘Soul, world-soul and individual soul in Plotinus’, in Le Néoplatonisme Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. Royaumont 9–13.6.1969 (1971) 60Google Scholar.

29. Cf. e.g. Proclus, , in Alc. 122–3Google Scholar;, see also Todd, R. B., ‘Epitedeiotes in philosophical literature towards an analysis’, AClass 15 (1972) 31Google Scholar and n. 27.

30. See e.g. Proclus, , El. Th. 166, 182–4Google Scholar.

31. The reference is probably to his lost commentary on the de Anima but the point may be found in his independent treatise on the soul, de An. 23.24–24.9.

32. See nn. 8 and 10.

33. Fr. 7 Ross.

34. Cf. ‘Neoplatonic elements’ 73-7.

35. Ibid. 76-7, 79-81.

36. Cf. Alex., de An. 20.26–21.11.

37. Cf. Proclus, , El. Th. 64Google Scholar, with Dodds‘ note ad loc.; Smith, A., Porphyry's place in the Neoplatonic tradition (1974) 7–19Google Scholar.

38. 18. 22-33.

39. Cf. also Tim. 69C.

40. This paper was given at Christ's College.

41. Cf. de Generatione Animalium ed. Peck, A. L. (1942) App. B, 576–8Google Scholar.

42. Cf. Praechter, , reviewing CAG 22.2, GGA (1906) 862–4Google Scholar (reprinted in Kleine Schriften. see n. 8); Browning, R., ‘An unpublished funeral oration on Anna Comnena’, PCPS n.s. 8 (1962) 7–8Google Scholar.

43. Cf. Solmsen, F., ‘Greek philosophy and the discovery of the nerves’, MH 18 (1961) 178–90Google Scholar.

44. On this see Sambursky, S., Stoic physics (1959) 34Google Scholar; Easterling, H. J., ‘Quinta natura’, MH 21 (1964) esp. 81–3Google Scholar.

45. Cf. Plot. 2.2.2.19-26.

46. Cf. Nussbaum, M. C., Aristotle's de Motu Animalium (1978) 143–64Google Scholar.

47. Cf. Kirk, G. S. and Raven, J. E., The Presocratic philosophers (1957) 1Google Scholar.

48. Nussbaum (n. 46) 6 and n. 15, referring to a fuller discussion in her Harvard doctoral dissertation.

49. Ibid.

50. Cf. Simplic. 195.30-1; Proclus, , El. Th. 51 and 75Google Scholar.

51. Cf. the somewhat earlier uses in Proclus, , in Alc. 320.10–11Google Scholar, in Eucl. 94.21–5.

52. ‘Neoplatonic elements’ 85-6.