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

Re: Michael Psellos references

Expand Messages
  • vaeringjar
    ... Byzantine ... Psellos and ... work on ... a while ... That was quick - thank you both for the references, which both look most interesting. Looks like Prof
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 16, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Tzvi Langermann <ytl@...> wrote:
      >
      > There are several articles on Psellos in K. Ierodiakonou (ed.),
      Byzantine
      > Philosophy and its Ancient Sources (Oxford, 2002), including Polymnia
      > Athanassiadi, "Byzantine Commentators on the Chaldean Oracles:
      Psellos and
      > Plethon." I'm not competent to offer a professional opinion of her
      work on
      > Psellos; if I'm not mistaken, I did post something about "Elissaeus"
      a while
      > back, and I'm quite skeptical about the Suhrawardi connection.
      >
      > Y. Tzvi Langermann
      > Department of Arabic
      > Bar Ilan University
      >

      That was quick - thank you both for the references, which both look
      most interesting.

      Looks like Prof Athanassiadi has already taken a look at Psellos in in
      some regard, though not long ago. Unfortunately Google books won't show
      the part of her essay there on Psellos, only the last part on Plethon.
      Schade. It does give her bibliography, which is not all that long and
      mostly refers to the usual standard works on the Oracles, including her
      article in Pagan Monotheism, which I have read but not recently. I
      suppose I can dig around in Lewy about this idea also.

      The introduction however is available on Google, and apparently from
      the comments there at least you can say that in general the study of
      Byzantine philosophy per se is rather in its infancy.

      Dennis Clark
    • vaeringjar
      ... of ... of ... Platonism . ... also ... Kaldellis Hellenism ... state.edu/people/faculty/regular_faculty_viewer.php?fac=Kaldellis ...
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
        >
        > You might want to check out Anthony Kaldellis' book "The Argument
        of
        > Psellos' Chronographia". The main focus is a sweeping reassessment
        of
        > Psellos as a Platonist - and Kaldellis states very early on that he
        > intends the book to be a "contribution to the history of
        Platonism".
        > Kaldellis is of the opinion (as outlined earlier in his book on
        > Procopius) that Hellenism persisted as a more or less intact, but
        also
        > (at times just barely) clandestine cultural/philosophical/political
        > current throughout much of Byzantine history. For
        Kaldellis' "Hellenism"
        > is inherently incompatible with Christianity (thus the need for
        > clandestinity) - and it's highest form of expression is Platonism.
        >
        > Kaldellis' website at the Department of Latin and Greek at the Ohio
        > State University:
        > http://omega.cohums.ohio-
        state.edu/people/faculty/regular_faculty_viewer.php?fac=Kaldellis
        >
        > The Argument of Psellos' Chronographia at googlebooks:
        > http://books.google.com/books?
        id=Bhe3PiGDOv8C&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=kaldellis+psellos&source=web&ots
        =vNGTd_b9ZJ&sig=9XoKGOmBUrD8w6kD7CfNBbnnENo
        >
        > A BMCR review of Kaldellis' book on Procopius:
        > http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-10-11.html
        >
        > Curt Steinmetz
        >

        And from that website it appears he has another book on Psellos just
        out, along with the one on Procopius you refer to - both worth
        reading, I would think:

        Mothers and Sons, Fathers and Daughters: The Byzantine Family of
        Michael Psellos, South Bend, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 2006.

        Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of
        Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004).

        Dennis Clark
      • Michael Chase
        ... M.C. Yes, that s very much the case. Recent years have, however, seen a big increase in editions of Psellus (seven volumes, I believe). Most of his
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 16, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:21 AM, vaeringjar wrote:

          > On the Late Antiquity group we just got into a discussion of the
          > solar theology laid out in Macrobius Sat. I, and among other things
          > that set me off to look at a passage on the sun in Psellos' writings
          > on the Chaldaean Oracles referred to by Gersh in his chapter on
          > Macrobius in his book on Latin Middle and Neoplatonism.
          >
          > My question is, has anyone done a thorough study of Psellos as a
          > philosopher? My only contact with anything like that is the work of
          > O'Meara in regards to recovering the portions of Iamblichus'
          > Pythagorean series in Psellos. I do know of a book by Paul Lemerle,
          > Le premier humanisme byzantin: Notes et remarques sur enseignement et
          > culture à Byzance des origines au Xe siècle. Paris 1971, but have not
          > read it. It seems in general that his historical writings have been
          > studied more - ?

          M.C. Yes, that's very much the case. Recent years have, however, seen a
          big increase in editions of Psellus (seven volumes, I believe). Most of
          his philosophical works and orations are now available in the Teubner
          series, while the Italians have been putting out numerous editions of
          his speeches.


          > It was only in the early 1980's that O'Meara came up
          > with his theory about the Pythagorean writings, and I gather from
          > looking briefly at his chapter on Psellus again that at the time of
          > its writing there was not even a complete list compiled of all of
          > Psellos' writings,

          M.C. There is now, see


          Moore, Paul. – Iter Psellianum : a detailed listing of manuscript
          sources for all works attributed to Michael Psellos, including a
          comprehensive bibliography. Toronto : Pontifical institute of
          mediaeval studies, 2005. XIII-752 p. 2 index. (Subsidia mediaevalia ;
          26).

          > let alone I assume modern editions of all of them.
          > I guess then that means that the PG does not include all of Psellus.

          M.C. Very true. The PG also contains works by "Psellus" that are not by
          him. Others remain largely unedited, including his work as a commetator
          on Aristotle (although his commentary In Phys. is available in a
          reprint of the 1554 Latin translation, Stuttgart- Bad Cannstatt :
          Frommann-Holzboog 1990). The Omnifaria Doctrina is available in a
          separate edition by Westerink.


          >
          > But this set me to wondering, is it possible that Psellos also has
          > preserved parts or at least echoes of Iamblichus' Commentary on the
          > Chaldaean Oracles in his own writings on them. I have never read
          > through through his text thoroughly, but I intend to now, in
          > O'Meara's Teubner. But if he did indeed have access to the complete
          > series of Iamblichus' Pythagorean books, including ones lost to us
          > now, as O'Meara's work would indicate, then is it not possible that
          > he had access to other now lost works of Iamblichus? Detecting them
          > may be difficult, and he could also be borrowing I would think from
          > Proclus potentially, so distinguishing his sources may not be so
          > easy, assuming that is there is anything "new" there in the first
          > place.
          >
          > Do we even know the full range of what ancient works Psellus did have
          > access to in his time?

          M.. No. I personally suspect Psellus may have had access to part at
          least of Porphyry's commentaries on the Chaldaean Oracles. What is
          certain is that he is our only source for some very obscure Porphyrian
          works, including works on demonology (cf. fr. 471-472 Smith). Careful
          study of Psellus' own numerous demonological works (some of which are
          of doubtful authenticity) might shed light on the little-understood
          subject of Neoplatonic demonology in Late Antiquity.

          Best, Mike.
          >
          >
          Michael Chase
          (goya@...)
          CNRS UPR 76
          7, rue Guy Moquet
          Villejuif 94801
          France
        • vaeringjar
          ... has ... the ... complete ... us ... that ... them ... from ... have ... Porphyrian ... Careful ... are ... Most informative, thanks, Mike, for all the
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 16, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Michael Chase <goya@...> wrote:
            >
            > >
            > > But this set me to wondering, is it possible that Psellos also
            has
            > > preserved parts or at least echoes of Iamblichus' Commentary on
            the
            > > Chaldaean Oracles in his own writings on them. I have never read
            > > through through his text thoroughly, but I intend to now, in
            > > O'Meara's Teubner. But if he did indeed have access to the
            complete
            > > series of Iamblichus' Pythagorean books, including ones lost to
            us
            > > now, as O'Meara's work would indicate, then is it not possible
            that
            > > he had access to other now lost works of Iamblichus? Detecting
            them
            > > may be difficult, and he could also be borrowing I would think
            from
            > > Proclus potentially, so distinguishing his sources may not be so
            > > easy, assuming that is there is anything "new" there in the first
            > > place.
            > >
            > > Do we even know the full range of what ancient works Psellus did
            have
            > > access to in his time?
            >
            > M.. No. I personally suspect Psellus may have had access to part at
            > least of Porphyry's commentaries on the Chaldaean Oracles. What is
            > certain is that he is our only source for some very obscure
            Porphyrian
            > works, including works on demonology (cf. fr. 471-472 Smith).
            Careful
            > study of Psellus' own numerous demonological works (some of which
            are
            > of doubtful authenticity) might shed light on the little-understood
            > subject of Neoplatonic demonology in Late Antiquity.
            >
            > Best, Mike.
            > >
            > >


            Most informative, thanks, Mike, for all the references.

            I already started digging into the texts of Psellus themselves, Op.
            38 and 39 in O'Meara's edition. He says in his introduction, as to
            sources, only "Commentario Procli in oracula Chaldaica usus est
            Psellus, ut Kroll 3-5 demonstravit". Op. 38 is literally an Exegesis,
            in the form of each oracle quoted followed by Psellus' exegesis. So
            just approaching this text anew, you have to ask yourself, is each
            exegesis totally Psellus' (most unlikely), drawn from one ancient
            source - Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus (or someone else?), who could,
            in the case of Proclus certainly, be also rehearsing earlier ideas
            from his predecessors, and not necessarily citing them by name, or is
            each exegesis Psellus' amalgam of multiple ancient sources, with
            something of his own here and there. A quick glance shows at least
            one direct quotation of Proclus on the Oracles; it would be
            interesting to read what Kroll says on this, obviously.

            For what it's worth, at the end of Op. 39, his summary of the
            doctrines of the Oracles, Psellus writes, "Touton de ton dogmaton ta
            pleio kai Aristoteles kai Platon edeksanto, hoi de peri Plotinon kai
            Iamblichon Porphyrion te kai Proklon pasi katekolouthesan kai hos
            theias phonas asyllogistos tauta edeksanto" (O'Meara p.148). The
            exact same sentence occurs at the end of Op. 41, his summary
            of "Assyrian" dogma. I suppose if nothing else that leaves the door
            open that he was working from more than one original, but it's not
            much support.

            Why "asullogistos"? Not sure I follow that exactly. "By revelation,
            not reasoningly"?

            Dennis Clark
          • Curt Steinmetz
            ... One of Kaldellis main contentions is that the historical writings of both Procopius and Psellos should be viewed as deeply philosophical works in their
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 16, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              vaeringjar wrote:
              > It seems in general that his historical writings have been
              > studied more - ?

              One of Kaldellis main contentions is that the "historical" writings of
              both Procopius and Psellos should be viewed as deeply philosophical
              works in their own right. On Procopius Kaldellis says

              "What does it tell us about [Procopoius'] methods that whole passages of
              the "Wars" are lifted verbatim from Plato's "Republic"? Equally
              important, what does it tell us about current methods that this has not
              been seen?" (p. 5)

              And when it comes to Psellos - Kaldellis insists that the Chronographia
              itself is an essentially a philosophical text. In fact he says that "its
              narrative encloses a subtle and complex philosophical argument that
              transcends the particular events he describes." (p. 1)

              Kaldellis claims that going back to Thucydides Greek "historical" works
              (at least those of the caliber of Thucydides) fit this general pattern -
              they are first and foremost great works of literature. While they may
              serve (especially centuries later) as invaluable sources of historical
              "information", they are first and foremost finely crafted vehicles for
              the expression of the author's ideas. Or something like that. Somehow
              Straussianism get's mixed in there, too - but to each his own.

              Curt
            • vaeringjar
              ... of ... passages of ... not ... Now how on earth could that have been missed? I guess he wouldn t make such a claim if it s not true, or I would certainly
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 17, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Curt Steinmetz <curt@...> wrote:
                >
                > vaeringjar wrote:
                > > It seems in general that his historical writings have been
                > > studied more - ?
                >
                > One of Kaldellis main contentions is that the "historical" writings
                of
                > both Procopius and Psellos should be viewed as deeply philosophical
                > works in their own right. On Procopius Kaldellis says
                >
                > "What does it tell us about [Procopoius'] methods that whole
                passages of
                > the "Wars" are lifted verbatim from Plato's "Republic"? Equally
                > important, what does it tell us about current methods that this has
                not
                > been seen?" (p. 5)
                >

                Now how on earth could that have been missed? I guess he wouldn't
                make such a claim if it's not true, or I would certainly hope not.

                I read the reviews of his work, and certainly he has set a course not
                plotted before! I have so many other things to read I just can't
                afford to divert to Procopius now, but it sounds worth it.


                Dennis Clark
              • vaeringjar
                I suppose (he wrote rather sheepishly) I ought to report that there is a sound consensus among those who have looked at Psellus writings on the Oracles that
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 17, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  I suppose (he wrote rather sheepishly) I ought to report that there
                  is a sound consensus among those who have looked at Psellus' writings
                  on the Oracles that he worked primarily and closely from Proclus' own
                  Commentary, and most likely from a full version of that text, not
                  some intermediate summary. Kroll already advances this notion way
                  back in his book. A good up-to-date summary of the scholarship is in
                  fact to be found in Polymnia Athanassiadi's relatively recent article
                  on the Oracles in the Pagan Monotheism collection. (By the way, this
                  is a most interesting collection of articles, really major actually
                  for late antique religion, I would say, though apparently I hadn't
                  read her article, oddly enough. I would not agree with all the
                  conclusions, however, of Liebeschutz's article on the speech of
                  Praetextatus on solar theology in Macrobius, which he does not see as
                  being influenced particularly by Neoplatonic theology.)

                  Lewy then affirmed Kroll's position, in fact in a separate excursus
                  in his book, devoted just to Psellus' writings, and then des Places
                  followed suite, all of whom I went through last night. So O'Meara's
                  rather terse comment about Psellus using Proclus is quite enough once
                  you know the background scholarship, and he also writes in his
                  introduction to his Teubner text that he does not intend to engage in
                  his edition in Quellenforschung anyway.

                  I would only add, you still have to wonder how much of Proclus apud
                  Psellum is in fact originally Iamblichus from his Commentary. For
                  what it's worth, there are some links to de Mysteriis noted by
                  O'Meara in Psellus' Exegesis, though as I recall they had to do with
                  demonology, so perhaps they reflect his great interest in that
                  subject rather than any other possible influence.

                  I can imagine fairly easily that many would wonder why Iamblichus' 28
                  books of Commentary, according to Damascius, wouldn't suffice quite
                  nicely for the subject, without Proclus feeling the need to add one
                  of his own, but perhaps he had points of difference or his master
                  Syrianus might have, or just preferred to make his own statements.
                  But I suspect there is a lot of Iamblichus here, but I wouldn't think
                  it's likely we could disentangle it.

                  Dennis Clark
                • Michael Chase
                  ... M.C. That s easy enough : http://www.theurgia.org/Kroll.html ... M.C. Indeed it s not. In such questions I prefer the technique of Occam s razor : if
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 17, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:33 PM, vaeringjar wrote:

                    >
                    >
                    > Most informative, thanks, Mike, for all the references.
                    >
                    > I already started digging into the texts of Psellus themselves, Op.
                    > 38 and 39 in O'Meara's edition. He says in his introduction, as to
                    > sources, only "Commentario Procli in oracula Chaldaica usus est
                    > Psellus, ut Kroll 3-5 demonstravit". Op. 38 is literally an Exegesis,
                    > in the form of each oracle quoted followed by Psellus' exegesis. So
                    > just approaching this text anew, you have to ask yourself, is each
                    > exegesis totally Psellus' (most unlikely), drawn from one ancient
                    > source - Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus (or someone else?), who could,
                    > in the case of Proclus certainly, be also rehearsing earlier ideas
                    > from his predecessors, and not necessarily citing them by name, or is
                    > each exegesis Psellus' amalgam of multiple ancient sources, with
                    > something of his own here and there. A quick glance shows at least
                    > one direct quotation of Proclus on the Oracles; it would be
                    > interesting to read what Kroll says on this, obviously.

                    M.C. That's easy enough : http://www.theurgia.org/Kroll.html


                    >
                    > For what it's worth, at the end of Op. 39, his summary of the
                    > doctrines of the Oracles, Psellus writes, "Touton de ton dogmaton ta
                    > pleio kai Aristoteles kai Platon edeksanto, hoi de peri Plotinon kai
                    > Iamblichon Porphyrion te kai Proklon pasi katekolouthesan kai hos
                    > theias phonas asyllogistos tauta edeksanto" (O'Meara p.148). The
                    > exact same sentence occurs at the end of Op. 41, his summary
                    > of "Assyrian" dogma. I suppose if nothing else that leaves the door
                    > open that he was working from more than one original, but it's not
                    > much support.

                    M.C. Indeed it's not. In such questions I prefer the technique of
                    Occam's razor : if Psellus or another ancient author had one source
                    that provided a compendium of the views of his philosophical
                    predecessors, is it likely that he would go out and find the
                    commentaries of Proclus, Iamblichus and Porphyry and have them "open on
                    his desk" at the same time ? I doubt it.

                    The same phenomenon is striking in the older commentators. Simplicius
                    begins his commentary on the Categories with an extremely precious
                    survey of previous scholarship, mentioning everybody who had written on
                    the subject. This had led scholars to think, "Wow, what an incredible
                    library he must have had". But after mentioning so many works, the same
                    Simplicius then goes on to add, with refreshing candour : " and I have
                    even read some of them".

                    Clearly, Simpl. is deriving his erudition second hand. In this
                    particular case, I've tried to show that S. is dependent almost
                    entirely on Iamblichus' commentary on the Categories, which in turn
                    reproduced large chunks of Porphyry's two commentaires In Cat. I would
                    be awfully surprised if Psellus was not doing the same thing.

                    By the way, for a French translation of P.'s treatises on the
                    Chaldaean Oracles see Des Places' edition of the Oracles. See also:

                    Silvia Lanzi, Michele Psello, Oracoli Caldaici, con appendici su
                    Proclo e Michele Italo, Milano: Mimesis 2001.


                    >
                    > Why "asullogistos"? Not sure I follow that exactly. "By revelation,
                    > not reasoningly"?

                    M.C. I would guess "not in accordance with the rules of logic,
                    intuitively". Lanza : "senza dimostrazione". But the idea of "by
                    revelation" is certainly present as well.

                    Cheers, Mike.


                    >
                    Michael Chase
                    (goya@...)
                    CNRS UPR 76
                    7, rue Guy Moquet
                    Villejuif 94801
                    France
                  • vaeringjar
                    ... revelation, ... I had forgotten that des Places has editions/translations of the Psellus essays in his Bude of the Oracles, since I started favoring
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 17, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >
                      > By the way, for a French translation of P.'s treatises on the
                      > Chaldaean Oracles see Des Places' edition of the Oracles. See also:
                      >
                      > Silvia Lanzi, Michele Psello, Oracoli Caldaici, con appendici su
                      > Proclo e Michele Italo, Milano: Mimesis 2001.
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Why "asullogistos"? Not sure I follow that exactly. "By
                      revelation,
                      > > not reasoningly"?
                      >
                      > M.C. I would guess "not in accordance with the rules of logic,
                      > intuitively". Lanza : "senza dimostrazione". But the idea of "by
                      > revelation" is certainly present as well.
                      >
                      > Cheers, Mike.
                      >
                      >
                      > >

                      I had forgotten that des Places has editions/translations of the
                      Psellus' essays in his Bude of the Oracles, since I started favoring
                      Majercik's with her extensive notes. Though the latest printing of
                      des Places' does cite O'Meara now as the standard text. Like Lanza,
                      he translates "asyllogistos" as "sans demonstration". Interestingly
                      enough, this qualifier is actually missing from the otherwise same-
                      worded ending sentence in Op. 41, his summary of the "Assyrian"
                      dogma. I haven't checked Majercik to see what she thinks, if
                      anything, about Psellus' use of Proclus.

                      Your interesting comments about extracting Iamblichus from Simplicius
                      and Simplicius' admission about actually reading his predecessors
                      reminds me for some reason of another field of interest for me, late
                      Roman Britain and the frustrations of anyone reading Gildas, who knew
                      so much more about 5th century Britain than he told us in his main
                      writing, but then he wasn't writing history and was not worried about
                      helping out those in the dark 1500 years later. We get what we get,
                      annoying as it can be at times.

                      Dennis Clark
                    • Peter Adamson
                      Dear all, Apologies if this has already been announced to the group; if so I missed the email. I thought you might all be interested in the publication of a
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 29, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear all,

                        Apologies if this has already been announced to the group; if so I
                        missed the email. I thought you might all be interested in the
                        publication of a collection of pieces on Porphyry, from the Institute
                        of Classical Studies. Here is their blurb:

                        As the study of later ancient philosophy has developed in recent years,
                        it has offered new insights into both the continuing vigour of the
                        Greco-Roman philosophical tradition and the interaction of that
                        tradition with the new cultures of Christianity and of the Arab
                        community. This volume addresses a key figure in this interaction.
                        Porphyry (234‒c.305 AD) was not only the greatest pupil of  Plotinus
                        and editor of his work but also a significant philosopher in his own
                        right.  Many aspects of Porphyry’s work have been re-appraised in
                        recent years, in the light of renewed interest in Neoplatonism as in
                        later ancient philosophy in general.  New editions and translations of
                        Porphyry’s works have appeared, enabling up-to-date discussion of
                        issues such as his loyalty to the views of Plotinus, his attitude to
                        Aristotle, his relationship to the culture of his time, and his
                        afterlife in later Platonist commentators on Aristotle, in the
                        Christian fathers, and in the Arabic tradition. A distinguished
                        international group of scholars address these topics in this volume:
                        Andrew Smith, Steven Strange, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Richard Sorabji,
                        Anne Sheppard, Peter Lautner, George Karamanolis, Mark Edwards, Gillian
                        Clark, and Peter Adamson. The papers were all given at a conference
                        held at the Institute of Classical Studies in July 2004.

                        See the website for more information:

                        http://icls.sas.ac.uk/institute/publicat.htm#SUPP98

                        Best,
                        Peter Adamson

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • vaeringjar
                        ... Institute ... years, ... Plotinus ... own ... in ... in ... translations of ... to ... Sorabji, ... Gillian ... I was hoping the blurb at the website would
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Peter Adamson
                          <peter.adamson@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Dear all,
                          >
                          > Apologies if this has already been announced to the group; if so I
                          > missed the email. I thought you might all be interested in the
                          > publication of a collection of pieces on Porphyry, from the
                          Institute
                          > of Classical Studies. Here is their blurb:
                          >
                          > As the study of later ancient philosophy has developed in recent
                          years,
                          > it has offered new insights into both the continuing vigour of the
                          > Greco-Roman philosophical tradition and the interaction of that
                          > tradition with the new cultures of Christianity and of the Arab
                          > community. This volume addresses a key figure in this interaction.
                          > Porphyry (234â€'c.305 AD) was not only the greatest pupil of 
                          Plotinus
                          > and editor of his work but also a significant philosopher in his
                          own
                          > right.  Many aspects of Porphyry’s work have been re-appraised
                          in
                          > recent years, in the light of renewed interest in Neoplatonism as
                          in
                          > later ancient philosophy in general.  New editions and
                          translations of
                          > Porphyry’s works have appeared, enabling up-to-date discussion of
                          > issues such as his loyalty to the views of Plotinus, his attitude
                          to
                          > Aristotle, his relationship to the culture of his time, and his
                          > afterlife in later Platonist commentators on Aristotle, in the
                          > Christian fathers, and in the Arabic tradition. A distinguished
                          > international group of scholars address these topics in this
                          volume:
                          > Andrew Smith, Steven Strange, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Richard
                          Sorabji,
                          > Anne Sheppard, Peter Lautner, George Karamanolis, Mark Edwards,
                          Gillian
                          > Clark, and Peter Adamson. The papers were all given at a conference
                          > held at the Institute of Classical Studies in July 2004.
                          >
                          > See the website for more information:
                          >
                          > http://icls.sas.ac.uk/institute/publicat.htm#SUPP98
                          >
                          > Best,
                          > Peter Adamson
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >

                          I was hoping the blurb at the website would give a list of titles of
                          all the included papers. One I already have read, and it's most
                          worthwhile, the paper by Steven Strange on Plotinus and Porphyry's
                          Metaphysics.

                          Dennis Clark
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.