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

Re: [neoplatonism] query about capsule history

Expand Messages
  • John Dillon
    ... Theodotos! Who he? A man of great obscurity! There was also, I think, Theodorus the Engineer, a friend of Proclus, to whom is dedicated the essay on
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 18, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > I'm not sure why Theodoros of Asine would not be possible. In a pinch,
      > however, one might recall that according to Willy Theiler, all later
      > information on the doctrines of Ammonios Saccas, who wrote nothing, came
      > from the *skholai* published by a certain Theodotos, diadoch of the
      > Platonic Academy, in about 268 AD.
      >
      > Best, Mike
      >
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >> I very much appreciate the encouragement from Professor Dillon. I have
      >>> >> deciphered all but one of the names and reproduce the passage with a few
      >>> >> notes:
      >>> >>
      >>> >> “Yahya al-Nahwi said: The partisans of Aristotle split into two groups
      >>> >> after
      >>> >> him [Aristotle, i.e. after his demise].One of them is the natural
      >>> >> scientists
      >>> >> and logicians; they are the ones who safeguarded his [Aristotle's]
      >>> >> opinion and
      >>> >> did not mix it with the philosophy of the ancients. They limited
      >>> >> themselves to
      >>> >> logic, the natural sciences, and the divine sciences (sic!). They are
      >>> >> Alexander of Aphrodisias, Nicolaus, and ??? The others followed his
      >>> >> [Aristotle's] opinion in logic and the natural sciences, but in the
      >>> >> divine and
      >>> >> spiritual sciences they followed the school of Plato, thus breaking from
      >>> >> him
      >>> >> with regard to them. They are Olympiodoros, Theodorus,and Ammonius
      >>> >> al-Khalil(?), except that the last of these was of the opinion that the
      >>> >> two of
      >>> >> them [Aristotle and Plato] cannot be combined in anything appertaining
      >>> >> to the
      >>> >> divine sciences save those places that impinge upon nature or the soul.
      >>> >> Abu Nasr al-Farabi claimed that there is no disagreement between them
      >>> >> and
      >>> >> wrote a book about it. But Abu Ali Miskawayh said that the matter is not
      >>> >> as
      >>> >> Abu Nasr said it was…”
      >>> >>
      >>> >> A few notes: Nicolaus must be Nicolaus Damascene whose expose of
      >>> >> Aristotle was
      >>> >> published by Drossaart Lulofs. Olympiodoros' name is misspelled exactly
      >>> >> as
      >>> >> reported by Bayard Dodge, Fihrist, p 604 n 126, from some manuscripts. I
      >>> >> do
      >>> >> not know which Theodorus the author has in mind, but the reading is
      >>> >> fairly
      >>> >> certain. Ammonios is called al-khalil (though the text is unpointed, I
      >>> >> cannot
      >>> >> suggest anything else right now), I don't see how Saccas came out this
      >>> >> way.
      >>> >> Maybe "friend" refers to Ammonios' alleged Christianity? In any case, I
      >>> >> floated the query only to confirm that the passage is unknown, and I am
      >>> >> glad
      >>> >> to have received such confirmation. Thank you all.
      >>> >>
      >>> >> Tzvi Langermann
      >>> >>
      >>> >> ----- Original Message -----
      >>> >> From: John Dillon
      >>> >> Sent: 06/08/12 02:11 PM
      >>> >> To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
      >>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
      >>> >> Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] query about capsule history
      >>> >>
      >>>>> >>> >
      >>>>> >>> >
      >>>>> >>> >
      >>> >>
      >>> >> Tzvi ‹ this is most interesting. I would suggest that Neoplatonic
      >>> >> commentators like Simplicius or Ammonius could be seen as corresponding
      >>> >> to
      >>> >> the second category, if looked at from a certain angle. John Dillon
      >>> >>
      >>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>> >>
      >>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >> >
      >> > Yes, Theodorus is a bit mysterious == Theodorus of Asine will hardly do.
      >> > But
      >> > a most interesting passage. Thank you, Tzvi, for producing it. JMD
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >> >
      >> >
      >
      > Michael Chase
      > CNRS UPR 76
      > Paris-Villejuif
      > France
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      Theodotos! Who he? A man of great obscurity! There was also, I think,
      Theodorus the Engineer, a friend of Proclus, to whom is dedicated the essay
      on Providence, but he¹s not much good either. Problem about Theodorus of
      Asine, I would think, is that he is not known to have concerned himself with
      Aristotle. John


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Goya
      ... M.C. Perhaps he is obscure to us. Not sure why this should count as an argument against his being known to the Arabs...The connection of Theodotos with
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 18, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> I'm not sure why Theodoros of Asine would not be possible. In a pinch,
        >> however, one might recall that according to Willy Theiler, all later
        >> information on the doctrines of Ammonios Saccas, who wrote nothing, came
        >> from the *skholai* published by a certain Theodotos, diadoch of the
        >> Platonic Academy, in about 268 AD.
        >>
        >> Best, Mike
        >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> I very much appreciate the encouragement from Professor Dillon. I
        >>>> have
        >>>> >> deciphered all but one of the names and reproduce the passage with
        >>>> a few
        >>>> >> notes:
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> “Yahya al-Nahwi said: The partisans of Aristotle split into two
        >>>> groups
        >>>> >> after
        >>>> >> him [Aristotle, i.e. after his demise].One of them is the natural
        >>>> >> scientists
        >>>> >> and logicians; they are the ones who safeguarded his [Aristotle's]
        >>>> >> opinion and
        >>>> >> did not mix it with the philosophy of the ancients. They limited
        >>>> >> themselves to
        >>>> >> logic, the natural sciences, and the divine sciences (sic!). They
        >>>> are
        >>>> >> Alexander of Aphrodisias, Nicolaus, and ??? The others followed his
        >>>> >> [Aristotle's] opinion in logic and the natural sciences, but in the
        >>>> >> divine and
        >>>> >> spiritual sciences they followed the school of Plato, thus breaking
        >>>> from
        >>>> >> him
        >>>> >> with regard to them. They are Olympiodoros, Theodorus,and Ammonius
        >>>> >> al-Khalil(?), except that the last of these was of the opinion that
        >>>> the
        >>>> >> two of
        >>>> >> them [Aristotle and Plato] cannot be combined in anything
        >>>> appertaining
        >>>> >> to the
        >>>> >> divine sciences save those places that impinge upon nature or the
        >>>> soul.
        >>>> >> Abu Nasr al-Farabi claimed that there is no disagreement between
        >>>> them
        >>>> >> and
        >>>> >> wrote a book about it. But Abu Ali Miskawayh said that the matter
        >>>> is not
        >>>> >> as
        >>>> >> Abu Nasr said it was…”
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> A few notes: Nicolaus must be Nicolaus Damascene whose expose of
        >>>> >> Aristotle was
        >>>> >> published by Drossaart Lulofs. Olympiodoros' name is misspelled
        >>>> exactly
        >>>> >> as
        >>>> >> reported by Bayard Dodge, Fihrist, p 604 n 126, from some
        >>>> manuscripts. I
        >>>> >> do
        >>>> >> not know which Theodorus the author has in mind, but the reading is
        >>>> >> fairly
        >>>> >> certain. Ammonios is called al-khalil (though the text is
        >>>> unpointed, I
        >>>> >> cannot
        >>>> >> suggest anything else right now), I don't see how Saccas came out
        >>>> this
        >>>> >> way.
        >>>> >> Maybe "friend" refers to Ammonios' alleged Christianity? In any
        >>>> case, I
        >>>> >> floated the query only to confirm that the passage is unknown, and
        >>>> I am
        >>>> >> glad
        >>>> >> to have received such confirmation. Thank you all.
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> Tzvi Langermann
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
        >>>> >> From: John Dillon
        >>>> >> Sent: 06/08/12 02:11 PM
        >>>> >> To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
        >>>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
        >>>> >> Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] query about capsule history
        >>>> >>
        >>>>>> >>> >
        >>>>>> >>> >
        >>>>>> >>> >
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> Tzvi ‹ this is most interesting. I would suggest that Neoplatonic
        >>>> >> commentators like Simplicius or Ammonius could be seen as
        >>>> corresponding
        >>>> >> to
        >>>> >> the second category, if looked at from a certain angle. John
        >>>> Dillon
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>>> >>
        >>> >
        >>> > Yes, Theodorus is a bit mysterious == Theodorus of Asine will hardly
        >>> do.
        >>> > But
        >>> > a most interesting passage. Thank you, Tzvi, for producing it. JMD
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>
        >> Michael Chase
        >> CNRS UPR 76
        >> Paris-Villejuif
        >> France
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > Theodotos! Who he? A man of great obscurity!

        M.C. Perhaps he is obscure to us. Not sure why this should count as an
        argument against his being known to the Arabs...The connection of
        Theodotos with Ammonius Saccas makes him a highly likely candidate, I
        should think

        There was also, I think,
        > Theodorus the Engineer, a friend of Proclus, to whom is dedicated the
        > essay
        > on Providence, but he¹s not much good either. Problem about Theodorus of
        > Asine, I would think, is that he is not known to have concerned himself
        > with
        > Aristotle. John

        M.C. Ammonius (in APr p. 1, 9ff.) seems to attest a commentary by
        Theodorus of Asine on the Categories : καὶ
        καλῶς
        Θεόδωρος
        λέγει
        δύνασθαι
        διττὸν εἶναι
        τὸν σκοπὸν
        τῶν
        Κατηγοριῶν,
        καὶ περὶ
        φωνῶν
        καὶ περὶ
        πραγμάτων.

        Best, Mike

        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        Michael Chase
        CNRS UPR 76
        Paris-Villejuif
        France
      • John Dillon
        ... I ... with ... two ... natural ... They ... his ... the ... that ... the ... matter ... is ... out ... and ... Well, there we are, then! I didn¹t know
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 18, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >> I'm not sure why Theodoros of Asine would not be possible. In a pinch,
          >>> >> however, one might recall that according to Willy Theiler, all later
          >>> >> information on the doctrines of Ammonios Saccas, who wrote nothing, came
          >>> >> from the *skholai* published by a certain Theodotos, diadoch of the
          >>> >> Platonic Academy, in about 268 AD.
          >>> >>
          >>> >> Best, Mike
          >>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> I very much appreciate the encouragement from Professor Dillon.
          I
          >>>>> >>>> have
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> deciphered all but one of the names and reproduce the passage
          with
          >>>>> >>>> a few
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> notes:
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> “Yahya al-Nahwi said: The partisans of Aristotle split into
          two
          >>>>> >>>> groups
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> after
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> him [Aristotle, i.e. after his demise].One of them is the
          natural
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> scientists
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> and logicians; they are the ones who safeguarded his
          >>>>>>> [Aristotle's]
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> opinion and
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> did not mix it with the philosophy of the ancients. They limited
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> themselves to
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> logic, the natural sciences, and the divine sciences (sic!).
          They
          >>>>> >>>> are
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Alexander of Aphrodisias, Nicolaus, and ??? The others followed
          his
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> [Aristotle's] opinion in logic and the natural sciences, but in
          the
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> divine and
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> spiritual sciences they followed the school of Plato, thus
          >>>>>>> breaking
          >>>>> >>>> from
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> him
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> with regard to them. They are Olympiodoros, Theodorus,and
          >>>>>>> Ammonius
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> al-Khalil(?), except that the last of these was of the opinion
          that
          >>>>> >>>> the
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> two of
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> them [Aristotle and Plato] cannot be combined in anything
          >>>>> >>>> appertaining
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> to the
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> divine sciences save those places that impinge upon nature or
          the
          >>>>> >>>> soul.
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Abu Nasr al-Farabi claimed that there is no disagreement between
          >>>>> >>>> them
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> and
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> wrote a book about it. But Abu Ali Miskawayh said that the
          matter
          >>>>> >>>> is not
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> as
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Abu Nasr said it was…”
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> A few notes: Nicolaus must be Nicolaus Damascene whose expose of
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Aristotle was
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> published by Drossaart Lulofs. Olympiodoros' name is misspelled
          >>>>> >>>> exactly
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> as
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> reported by Bayard Dodge, Fihrist, p 604 n 126, from some
          >>>>> >>>> manuscripts. I
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> do
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> not know which Theodorus the author has in mind, but the reading
          is
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> fairly
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> certain. Ammonios is called al-khalil (though the text is
          >>>>> >>>> unpointed, I
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> cannot
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> suggest anything else right now), I don't see how Saccas came
          out
          >>>>> >>>> this
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> way.
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Maybe "friend" refers to Ammonios' alleged Christianity? In any
          >>>>> >>>> case, I
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> floated the query only to confirm that the passage is unknown,
          and
          >>>>> >>>> I am
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> glad
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> to have received such confirmation. Thank you all.
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Tzvi Langermann
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> ----- Original Message -----
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> From: John Dillon
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Sent: 06/08/12 02:11 PM
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
          >>>>>>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>> >>>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>> >>>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] query about capsule history
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
          >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
          >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> Tzvi ‹ this is most interesting. I would suggest that
          >>>>>>> Neoplatonic
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> commentators like Simplicius or Ammonius could be seen as
          >>>>> >>>> corresponding
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> to
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> the second category, if looked at from a certain angle. John
          >>>>> >>>> Dillon
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>>>> >>>> >>
          >>>>> >>> >
          >>>>> >>> > Yes, Theodorus is a bit mysterious == Theodorus of Asine will hardly
          >>>> >>> do.
          >>>>> >>> > But
          >>>>> >>> > a most interesting passage. Thank you, Tzvi, for producing it. JMD
          >>>>> >>> >
          >>>>> >>> >
          >>>>> >>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>> >>> >
          >>>>> >>> >
          >>> >>
          >>> >> Michael Chase
          >>> >> CNRS UPR 76
          >>> >> Paris-Villejuif
          >>> >> France
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >>> >>
          >> >
          >> > Theodotos! Who he? A man of great obscurity!
          >
          > M.C. Perhaps he is obscure to us. Not sure why this should count as an
          > argument against his being known to the Arabs...The connection of
          > Theodotos with Ammonius Saccas makes him a highly likely candidate, I
          > should think
          >
          > There was also, I think,
          >> > Theodorus the Engineer, a friend of Proclus, to whom is dedicated the
          >> > essay
          >> > on Providence, but he¹s not much good either. Problem about Theodorus of
          >> > Asine, I would think, is that he is not known to have concerned himself
          >> > with
          >> > Aristotle. John
          >
          > M.C. Ammonius (in APr p. 1, 9ff.) seems to attest a commentary by
          > Theodorus of Asine on the Categories : καὶ
          > καλῶς
          > Θεόδωρος
          > λέγει
          > δύνασθαι
          > διττὸν εἶναι
          > τὸν σκοπὸν
          > τῶν
          > Κατηγοριῶν,
          > καὶ περὶ
          > φωνῶν
          > καὶ περὶ
          > πραγμάτων.
          >
          > Best, Mike
          >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >> >
          >> >
          >
          > Michael Chase
          > CNRS UPR 76
          > Paris-Villejuif
          > France
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          Well, there we are, then! I didn¹t know that. But did the Arabs know it, I
          wonder? John


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tzvi Langermann
          Actually, the second part of the name, which would de *doros* rather than *dotus* is clear enough--assuming, of course, that the scribe did not make an error
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 19, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually, the second part of the name, which would de *doros* rather than *dotus* is clear enough--assuming, of course, that the scribe did not make an error here. The first part is speculative, because an unpointed *kursi* can take 5 different pointings (or six should the second one be a hamza, which is not usually indicated in medieval manuscripts). I choose *tha* and *ya*, giving Theodorus, but there may be some other possibility.

            It does happen that a thinker who is hardly known, if at all, to modern scholarship, was considered by at least someone in previous ages to be one of the greats. Some Jewish texts from Yemen that I studied years ago consider Abu Ja'far al-Irdibili to be one of the greatest philosophers of all; but he hardly makes a cameo appearance in any other context.

            Tzvi Langermann


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