Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Speusippus Fragments in Isnardi-Parente edition online

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... 40yahoogroups.com , ... with ... again ... and ... curious ... his ... and ... article ... position ... the ... the ... me, ... and ... unable ... like
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, John Dilon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%
      40yahoogroups.com> ,
      > > Harold Tarrant
      > > <Harold.Tarrant@> wrote:
      > >> >
      > >> > That's great, Dennis. So all I need now is Taran's concordance
      with
      > > the
      > >> > I-P edition and it's all very usable. I'll be looking at Sp.
      again
      > > in my
      > >> > paper for the Dublin Int.Plato Society conf. in July.
      > >> >
      > >> > Cheers,
      > >> >
      > >> > Harold
      > >> >
      > >> > Prof. Harold Tarrant,
      > >> > School of Humanities and Social Science,
      > >> > University of Newcastle,
      > >> > NSW 2308 Australia
      > >> > Ph: (+61) 2 49215230
      > >> > Fax: (+61) 2 49216933
      > >> > *Eu Prattein*
      > >> >
      > >
      > > Yes, my thought exactly, and I will probably print the pages off
      and
      > > just write the Taran number on the printout. I am especially
      curious
      > > to read what she has to say about Taran 48 and 49 and the DCMS
      > > fragment. Why on earth is Taran so negative on that subject? And
      his
      > > argument on the unreliability of 48 is, in my admittedly amateur
      > > opinion, tortured to say the least. Not that the subject is open
      and
      > > shut - I certainly understand the difficulties here in firmly
      > > attributing these bits to Speusippus.
      > >
      > > For those interested, Gerald Bechtle has a very interesting
      article
      > > on the "minimum" of 49 in the collection of pieces from that
      > > conference in Catania in 2002 (?) with much comparison to later
      > > Neoplatonist positions. I need to read it again, since I am not
      > > totally clear on how he arrives at his view of Speusippus'
      position
      > > here, though it's clear to me he accepts the view that Speusippus
      > > definitely thought of the One as above being. He seems to accept
      the
      > > DCMS IV bit as Speusippan, though here and there he does qualify
      the
      > > acceptance somewhat. Seems like the most reasonable position to
      me,
      > > but that's just my opinion, not a thoroughly tutored one either.
      > >
      > > I am a little concerned now, however, about having posted this
      > > information on her edition. Since the posting I have gotten home
      and
      > > briefly compared my copy of her published Xenocrates fragments and
      > > the one online. I don't have a copy of her Speusippus, so I am
      unable
      > > to compare those two, but the Xenocrates online definitely looks
      like
      > > a second edition from what I can tell from just briefly reading
      the
      > > end of the introduction. Perhaps this was not meant for public
      > > consumption but rather is a pre-publish work in progress - ? She
      > > refers to the 1982 edition with a "1" superscript in a footnote,
      for
      > > example, and the introduction in the online version is very
      different
      > > from the 1982 edition.
      > >
      > > Having said that, as I pointed out before, I found it by
      Googling, so
      > > I would have to think it's not privileged in any way, unless it
      was
      > > put online by mistake. (I still don't know how online texts do or
      > > don't show up in these search engines. I am no Web programmer,
      > > either - ask me about Oracle though and I can mostly hold my
      own.) I
      > > hope I haven't transgressed here.
      > >
      > > Dennis Clark
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Dennis ‹ you have come upon something useful there, These are in
      fact
      > revised editions ‹ the Speusippus in particular taking on Taran.
      She sent
      > them to me in ms. some time ago, and I am interested to hear they
      are on the
      > web. John
      >


      I see, thanks for the information. So she probably is planning on
      publishing them at some point. Perhaps if someone knows her
      personally a note could be sent letting her know they are out there
      to be Googled, though maybe she already knows that and doesn't mind.

      At any rate, it's interesting to note different attitudes concerning
      the acceptance of whether the DCMS IV passage is Speusippan or not. I
      have read two articles in the past two days on Speusippus, the one by
      Bechtle I referred to in my earlier posting, and now one by Andreas
      Graeser from the conference also in 2002 on Thera called "Aristotle
      on Plato". It appears to me that there is not quite a full consensus
      that the passage really is Speusippan, but that many of us really
      would like it to be. I say this for one thing because Bechtle more or
      less accepts it, but with qualification, and then I noticed that
      Graeser in his article says while making one argument about the
      differences he perceives between Speusippus and Plato that he will
      avoid using DCMS IV "word for word" because of possible
      Neoplatonist "colouring" there, but then in the next footnote he does
      actually adduce a point from DCMS IV.

      One thing that bothers me a bit about the identification as
      Speusippan is using as evidence from DCMS IV the fact that both there
      and in Taran 48 it is stated that the One is above being. The
      potential problem I see here is that such a position is also that of
      Iamblichus, so how can we be sure that in DCMS IV the position being
      advanced is not rather merely Iamblichus' own? But on the other hand
      it could also just as easily represent Iamblichus restating in
      agreement Speusippus' original position or even Speusippus' original
      words. Curiously enough, when attacking DCMS IV as non-Speusippan, I
      don't think Taran raises this point, unless I missed reading it
      somewhere in his text.

      Graeser's piece is certainly of interest - I gather he takes the
      Parmenides to be Plato's answer to Speusippus' criticisms, though he
      must develop that notion more fully in another book. It was a little
      hard to follow his argument in places in the Speusippus article
      without knowing something I suspect of his other positions. There are
      a lot of other really nice papers in that volume, not the least of
      which is Prof Tarrant's on the Unwritten Doctrines. The latter made
      me wonder if perhaps some of them were not at least championed (or
      more?) mostly by Speusippus, and if some of Aristotle's reaction to
      them was as much a reaction to Speusippus as to the Doctrines
      themselves. Perhaps this is rather a distinction without a
      difference, if Speusippus is largely in agreement with them, but
      still I think it's something of a different slant, and you have to
      wonder about the personal relationship of the two men.

      I think more and more the loss of Speusippus' writing is a huge
      lacuna, and I don't understand why he isn't referred to more directly
      by later writers. Maybe that fact shows on the contrary that he
      wasn't really that important, or did he just fail to have enough
      champions in the first century BC or AD to preserve his work? There
      is an interesting point made in the new Cambridge history of
      Hellenistic Philosophy (sorry, can't remember offhand the author)
      about how so much Hellenistic philosophical writing perished because
      there were no formal supporters to transcribe the texts from papyri
      to vellum in the later periods AD. Perhaps Speusippus and Xenocrates
      both succumbed to this, and I suppose even earlier that someone like
      Carneades and his followers in the later Academy would not much care
      about Speusippus' view of things anyway - ? I don't know, maybe
      that's not fair. I guess it's not surprising that Iamblichus would
      find him useful, because of their shared "Pythagorean" interests. So
      how many of Speusippus' actual texts did Iamblichus have access to?


      Dennis Clark
    • vaeringjar
      ... I just tried going to one of the mirror sites linked on the Perseus main page, the one in Berlin, and it seems to be working ok. I wouldn t be surprised if
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 13, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Dan Hartjes <dhartjes@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > The Perseus project seems to be down, anybody know
        > where
        > I can get a concordance, hopefully online, to the
        > works
        > of Plato. I am trying to find the word archetype each
        > time
        > it comes up.
        > Dan
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        > http://mail.yahoo.com
        >

        I just tried going to one of the mirror sites linked on the Perseus
        main page, the one in Berlin, and it seems to be working ok. I
        wouldn't be surprised if it's a bit pokey until the get the main
        servers back online, but at least it appears to be working. Good luck
        with it.

        Dennis Clark
      • John Dilon
        ... Yes, Dennis, there is something less than a full consensus on DCMS IV, but that is hardly surprising, as it is entirely anonymous. As for Taran, his
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
          > John Dilon <jmdillon@...> wrote:
          >> >
          >>> > >
          >>> > >
          >>> > >
          >>> > >
          >>> > > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
          >>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:neoplatonism%
          > 40yahoogroups.com> ,
          >>> > > Harold Tarrant
          >>> > > <Harold.Tarrant@> wrote:
          >>>>> > >> >
          >>>>> > >> > That's great, Dennis. So all I need now is Taran's concordance
          > with
          >>> > > the
          >>>>> > >> > I-P edition and it's all very usable. I'll be looking at Sp.
          > again
          >>> > > in my
          >>>>> > >> > paper for the Dublin Int.Plato Society conf. in July.
          >>>>> > >> >
          >>>>> > >> > Cheers,
          >>>>> > >> >
          >>>>> > >> > Harold
          >>>>> > >> >
          >>>>> > >> > Prof. Harold Tarrant,
          >>>>> > >> > School of Humanities and Social Science,
          >>>>> > >> > University of Newcastle,
          >>>>> > >> > NSW 2308 Australia
          >>>>> > >> > Ph: (+61) 2 49215230
          >>>>> > >> > Fax: (+61) 2 49216933
          >>>>> > >> > *Eu Prattein*
          >>>>> > >> >
          >>> > >
          >>> > > Yes, my thought exactly, and I will probably print the pages off
          > and
          >>> > > just write the Taran number on the printout. I am especially
          > curious
          >>> > > to read what she has to say about Taran 48 and 49 and the DCMS
          >>> > > fragment. Why on earth is Taran so negative on that subject? And
          > his
          >>> > > argument on the unreliability of 48 is, in my admittedly amateur
          >>> > > opinion, tortured to say the least. Not that the subject is open
          > and
          >>> > > shut - I certainly understand the difficulties here in firmly
          >>> > > attributing these bits to Speusippus.
          >>> > >
          >>> > > For those interested, Gerald Bechtle has a very interesting
          > article
          >>> > > on the "minimum" of 49 in the collection of pieces from that
          >>> > > conference in Catania in 2002 (?) with much comparison to later
          >>> > > Neoplatonist positions. I need to read it again, since I am not
          >>> > > totally clear on how he arrives at his view of Speusippus'
          > position
          >>> > > here, though it's clear to me he accepts the view that Speusippus
          >>> > > definitely thought of the One as above being. He seems to accept
          > the
          >>> > > DCMS IV bit as Speusippan, though here and there he does qualify
          > the
          >>> > > acceptance somewhat. Seems like the most reasonable position to
          > me,
          >>> > > but that's just my opinion, not a thoroughly tutored one either.
          >>> > >
          >>> > > I am a little concerned now, however, about having posted this
          >>> > > information on her edition. Since the posting I have gotten home
          > and
          >>> > > briefly compared my copy of her published Xenocrates fragments and
          >>> > > the one online. I don't have a copy of her Speusippus, so I am
          > unable
          >>> > > to compare those two, but the Xenocrates online definitely looks
          > like
          >>> > > a second edition from what I can tell from just briefly reading
          > the
          >>> > > end of the introduction. Perhaps this was not meant for public
          >>> > > consumption but rather is a pre-publish work in progress - ? She
          >>> > > refers to the 1982 edition with a "1" superscript in a footnote,
          > for
          >>> > > example, and the introduction in the online version is very
          > different
          >>> > > from the 1982 edition.
          >>> > >
          >>> > > Having said that, as I pointed out before, I found it by
          > Googling, so
          >>> > > I would have to think it's not privileged in any way, unless it
          > was
          >>> > > put online by mistake. (I still don't know how online texts do or
          >>> > > don't show up in these search engines. I am no Web programmer,
          >>> > > either - ask me about Oracle though and I can mostly hold my
          > own.) I
          >>> > > hope I haven't transgressed here.
          >>> > >
          >>> > > Dennis Clark
          >>> > >
          >>> > >
          >>> > >
          >> >
          >> > Dennis ‹ you have come upon something useful there, These are in
          > fact
          >> > revised editions ‹ the Speusippus in particular taking on Taran.
          > She sent
          >> > them to me in ms. some time ago, and I am interested to hear they
          > are on the
          >> > web. John
          >> >
          >
          > I see, thanks for the information. So she probably is planning on
          > publishing them at some point. Perhaps if someone knows her
          > personally a note could be sent letting her know they are out there
          > to be Googled, though maybe she already knows that and doesn't mind.
          >
          > At any rate, it's interesting to note different attitudes concerning
          > the acceptance of whether the DCMS IV passage is Speusippan or not. I
          > have read two articles in the past two days on Speusippus, the one by
          > Bechtle I referred to in my earlier posting, and now one by Andreas
          > Graeser from the conference also in 2002 on Thera called "Aristotle
          > on Plato". It appears to me that there is not quite a full consensus
          > that the passage really is Speusippan, but that many of us really
          > would like it to be. I say this for one thing because Bechtle more or
          > less accepts it, but with qualification, and then I noticed that
          > Graeser in his article says while making one argument about the
          > differences he perceives between Speusippus and Plato that he will
          > avoid using DCMS IV "word for word" because of possible
          > Neoplatonist "colouring" there, but then in the next footnote he does
          > actually adduce a point from DCMS IV.
          >
          > One thing that bothers me a bit about the identification as
          > Speusippan is using as evidence from DCMS IV the fact that both there
          > and in Taran 48 it is stated that the One is above being. The
          > potential problem I see here is that such a position is also that of
          > Iamblichus, so how can we be sure that in DCMS IV the position being
          > advanced is not rather merely Iamblichus' own? But on the other hand
          > it could also just as easily represent Iamblichus restating in
          > agreement Speusippus' original position or even Speusippus' original
          > words. Curiously enough, when attacking DCMS IV as non-Speusippan, I
          > don't think Taran raises this point, unless I missed reading it
          > somewhere in his text.
          >
          > Graeser's piece is certainly of interest - I gather he takes the
          > Parmenides to be Plato's answer to Speusippus' criticisms, though he
          > must develop that notion more fully in another book. It was a little
          > hard to follow his argument in places in the Speusippus article
          > without knowing something I suspect of his other positions. There are
          > a lot of other really nice papers in that volume, not the least of
          > which is Prof Tarrant's on the Unwritten Doctrines. The latter made
          > me wonder if perhaps some of them were not at least championed (or
          > more?) mostly by Speusippus, and if some of Aristotle's reaction to
          > them was as much a reaction to Speusippus as to the Doctrines
          > themselves. Perhaps this is rather a distinction without a
          > difference, if Speusippus is largely in agreement with them, but
          > still I think it's something of a different slant, and you have to
          > wonder about the personal relationship of the two men.
          >
          > I think more and more the loss of Speusippus' writing is a huge
          > lacuna, and I don't understand why he isn't referred to more directly
          > by later writers. Maybe that fact shows on the contrary that he
          > wasn't really that important, or did he just fail to have enough
          > champions in the first century BC or AD to preserve his work? There
          > is an interesting point made in the new Cambridge history of
          > Hellenistic Philosophy (sorry, can't remember offhand the author)
          > about how so much Hellenistic philosophical writing perished because
          > there were no formal supporters to transcribe the texts from papyri
          > to vellum in the later periods AD. Perhaps Speusippus and Xenocrates
          > both succumbed to this, and I suppose even earlier that someone like
          > Carneades and his followers in the later Academy would not much care
          > about Speusippus' view of things anyway - ? I don't know, maybe
          > that's not fair. I guess it's not surprising that Iamblichus would
          > find him useful, because of their shared "Pythagorean" interests. So
          > how many of Speusippus' actual texts did Iamblichus have access to?
          >
          > Dennis Clark
          >
          >
          >

          Yes, Dennis, there is something less than a full consensus on DCMS IV, but
          that is hardly surprising, as it is entirely anonymous. As for Taran, his
          negativity comes from his being a devoted follower of Harold Cherniss. He is
          a formidable scholar, but on this sort of subject he is rather blinkered, I
          fear. DCMS IV may indeed be less than a verbatim transcript of Speusippus,
          especially in its latter part, but I don¹t think that that detracts
          seriously from its importance. As fpr Speusippus¹ fate in the later
          tradition, I think that perhaps it was rather his originality, and somewhat
          off-beat ideas that caused him to be eclipsed, especially since Xenocrates
          followed just after him. John


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.