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

Re: [neoplatonism] Re: Translation of Aeneas of Gaza: Theophrastus and Zacharias of Mytilene: Ammonius

Expand Messages
  • John Dillon
    ... Well, not that easy, but not too bad either. Aeneas and Zacharias are both pretty sophisticated Œsophists¹, Christians though they may be, and their
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 3, 2012
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Thanks for letting us know that it's published now. These dialogues get cited
      > so often in work such as Watts' and so many others on the intellectual milieu
      > of that time, but they are not so readily available even in Greek, at least in
      > my experience.
      >
      > I wonder how it was to translate these, since to me they have always appeared
      > as rather isolated exercises, at least from the literary side, from that
      > period, unless I am mistaken, though the points contended are hardly obscure
      > at all.
      >
      > Dennis Clark
      >
      > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      > "sebastian.gertz" <sebastian.gertz@...> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > Dear all,
      >> >
      >> > In light of the group's discussion of Edward Watts' work a while back, I
      >> thought some of you might be interested to know that there's now an English
      >> translation of the two little dialogues by the Gazans Aeneas and Zacharias.
      >> It's appeared in the Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series:
      >> >
      >> > http://tinyurl.com/d3p6lfa
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > All best,
      >> >
      >> > Sebastian
      >> >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      Well, not that easy, but not too bad either. Aeneas and Zacharias are both
      pretty sophisticated Œsophists¹, Christians though they may be, and their
      confrontation with the Platonic tradition is pretty lively and interesting.
      There are oddities in their Greek, but not too many. Gaza was a rather
      better place to hang out then than it is now, sad to say!


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vaeringjar
      ... Interesting - I wondered if it would be rather one of those situations where there is just the Greek text and the translator (dictionary at hand) and not
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 4, 2012
        > >
        >
        > Well, not that easy, but not too bad either. Aeneas and Zacharias are both
        > pretty sophisticated Œsophists¹, Christians though they may be, and their
        > confrontation with the Platonic tradition is pretty lively and interesting.
        > There are oddities in their Greek, but not too many. Gaza was a rather
        > better place to hang out then than it is now, sad to say!
        >
        >


        Interesting - I wondered if it would be rather one of those situations where there is just the Greek text and the translator (dictionary at hand) and not much else to help.

        But Gaza was a strong center of learning in the 5th and 6th centuries, at least for rhetoric if not so much philosophy, wasn't it also? I have seen interesting sounding titles from Choricius, none of which I have read, though personally I am not aware of any general study of all that was going on there in Late Antiquity in Gaza. Perhaps there is one I just don't know about?

        Didn't Choricius write about mimes or some such? We must not have a lot on that subject!

        Oh, yes, what is going on there now is a shame to the 'civilized' world, regardless of the politics either way.

        Really curious finally to know more about these two dialogues, and now the translations will prompt at last a reading, make me also get out the Greek text. They intrigue me.

        Dennis Clark
      • John Leake
        Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb s recent book Demons and Dancers: Performance
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
          Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and Dancers: Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she discusses Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
        • Goya
          I ve just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other volumes of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College, Oxford. Looks
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
            I've just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other volumes
            of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College,
            Oxford. Looks good.

            Highlight of the Conference: a presentation by Nigel Wilson, David Sedley,
            Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed of their decipherment and
            translation of the text of the Categories commentary in the Archimedes
            Palimpsest, which they think is a fragment from Porphyry's Ad Gedalium.

            My first impression is that it is, instead, a Late Antique/Byzantine
            paraphrase of the Ad Gedalium by a rather dim-witted student. But hey,
            they've been working on the text for a decade, and I first saw it less
            than 24 hours ago. So chances are they're right and I'm wrong*.

            Best, Mike






            (*P.S.: If that text is by Porphyry, then I'm the King of Siam).








            > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in
            > Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and Dancers:
            > Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she discusses
            > Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
            >
            >
            >


            Michael Chase
            CNRS UPR 76
            Paris-Villejuif
            France
          • vaeringjar
            Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be Peripatetic - ? How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was deciphered the more
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
              Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be Peripatetic - ? How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was deciphered the more it looked to them like Porphyry...even on a bad day?!?

              I may have remembered that incorrectly anyway. So, does it add much, the work itself, whoever wrote it? I guess at some point it will be published.

              Is there any information to be gleaned from the fact it appears with the Archimedes? Just random luck?

              Dennis Clark


              --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "Goya" <goya@...> wrote:
              >
              > I've just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other volumes
              > of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College,
              > Oxford. Looks good.
              >
              > Highlight of the Conference: a presentation by Nigel Wilson, David Sedley,
              > Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed of their decipherment and
              > translation of the text of the Categories commentary in the Archimedes
              > Palimpsest, which they think is a fragment from Porphyry's Ad Gedalium.
              >
              > My first impression is that it is, instead, a Late Antique/Byzantine
              > paraphrase of the Ad Gedalium by a rather dim-witted student. But hey,
              > they've been working on the text for a decade, and I first saw it less
              > than 24 hours ago. So chances are they're right and I'm wrong*.
              >
              > Best, Mike
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > (*P.S.: If that text is by Porphyry, then I'm the King of Siam).
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in
              > > Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and Dancers:
              > > Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she discusses
              > > Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > Michael Chase
              > CNRS UPR 76
              > Paris-Villejuif
              > France
              >
            • vaeringjar
              No, I did not know that at all, thanks for pointing it and this other book out. I will definitely try to track them down. Now I also am scratching my head that
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
                No, I did not know that at all, thanks for pointing it and this other book out. I will definitely try to track them down.

                Now I also am scratching my head that I never found any oration by Libanius on that subject! Another Bildungsloch...

                Dennis Clark

                --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, "John Leake" <jesleake@...> wrote:
                >
                > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and Dancers: Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she discusses Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
                >
              • Goya
                ... M.C. That was initially considered. Latest reasoning is Porph. How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was ... M.C. : it seems to have been long,
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 7, 2012
                  >
                  > Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be
                  > Peripatetic - ?

                  M.C. That was initially considered. Latest reasoning is Porph.

                  How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was
                  > deciphered the more it looked to them like Porphyry...even on a bad day?!?

                  M.C. : it seems to have been long, contains mentions of authors up to but
                  not including Alexander, has mention of the concepts
                  *akatatakton*/*katatetagmenon*, et.c
                  >
                  > I may have remembered that incorrectly anyway. So, does it add much, the
                  > work itself, whoever wrote it?

                  M.C. It seems to add some hitherto unknown quotes/paraphrases of Boethos,
                  Herminus, Nicostratus and other early Categories commentaries. Otherwise
                  it is - or at least seems to me - philosophically inconsequential.

                  I guess at some point it will be published.

                  M.C. Yup. Look for the next and translation in an upcoming number of
                  Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, and perhaps a book-length study
                  thereafter
                  >
                  > Is there any information to be gleaned from the fact it appears with the
                  > Archimedes? Just random luck?

                  M.C. What happened is that some time in the 13th century, a bunch of
                  (priceless) ancient manuscripts were erased in order to be re-used for
                  liturgical material. These mss. included one containing Archimedes,
                  another containing our anonymous commentary (seven folios), another
                  containing speeches of Hypereides, etc.: all unique mss. After 10 years of
                  work and high tech developments, the team has succeeded in un-erasing the
                  erased text, at least to a considerable degree.

                  Best, Mike

                  >
                  > Dennis Clark
                  >

                  Michael Chase
                  CNRS UPR 76
                  Paris-Villejuif
                  France
                • John Dillon
                  ... Well, I would suppose that, if it¹s Porphyry, we would find points of contact with the commentary of Simplicius, since he makes extensive use of both
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 8, 2012
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be
                    > Peripatetic - ? How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was
                    > deciphered the more it looked to them like Porphyry...even on a bad day?!?
                    >
                    > I may have remembered that incorrectly anyway. So, does it add much, the work
                    > itself, whoever wrote it? I guess at some point it will be published.
                    >
                    > Is there any information to be gleaned from the fact it appears with the
                    > Archimedes? Just random luck?
                    >
                    > Dennis Clark
                    >
                    > --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                    > "Goya" <goya@...> wrote:
                    >> >
                    >> > I've just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other volumes
                    >> > of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College,
                    >> > Oxford. Looks good.
                    >> >
                    >> > Highlight of the Conference: a presentation by Nigel Wilson, David Sedley,
                    >> > Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed of their decipherment and
                    >> > translation of the text of the Categories commentary in the Archimedes
                    >> > Palimpsest, which they think is a fragment from Porphyry's Ad Gedalium.
                    >> >
                    >> > My first impression is that it is, instead, a Late Antique/Byzantine
                    >> > paraphrase of the Ad Gedalium by a rather dim-witted student. But hey,
                    >> > they've been working on the text for a decade, and I first saw it less
                    >> > than 24 hours ago. So chances are they're right and I'm wrong*.
                    >> >
                    >> > Best, Mike
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > (*P.S.: If that text is by Porphyry, then I'm the King of Siam).
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >>> > > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on mimes in
                    >>> > > Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and
                    >>> Dancers:
                    >>> > > Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she discusses
                    >>> > > Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
                    >>> > >
                    >>> > >
                    >>> > >
                    >> >
                    >> >
                    >> > Michael Chase
                    >> > CNRS UPR 76
                    >> > Paris-Villejuif
                    >> > France
                    >> >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    Well, I would suppose that, if it¹s Porphyry, we would find points of
                    contact with the commentary of Simplicius, since he makes extensive use of
                    both Porphyry and Iamblichus. Is that the case?


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Goya
                    ... M.C. There are parallels with the commentaries of Porph., Simpl., and Dexippus, but as far as I can none of them word-for word quotations. Similar
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 8, 2012
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be
                      >> Peripatetic - ? How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was
                      >> deciphered the more it looked to them like Porphyry...even on a bad
                      >> day?!?
                      >>
                      >> I may have remembered that incorrectly anyway. So, does it add much, the
                      >> work
                      >> itself, whoever wrote it? I guess at some point it will be published.
                      >>
                      >> Is there any information to be gleaned from the fact it appears with the
                      >> Archimedes? Just random luck?
                      >>
                      >> Dennis Clark
                      >>
                      >> --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                      >> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                      >> "Goya" <goya@...> wrote:
                      >>> >
                      >>> > I've just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other
                      >>> volumes
                      >>> > of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College,
                      >>> > Oxford. Looks good.
                      >>> >
                      >>> > Highlight of the Conference: a presentation by Nigel Wilson, David
                      >>> Sedley,
                      >>> > Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed of their decipherment and
                      >>> > translation of the text of the Categories commentary in the
                      >>> Archimedes
                      >>> > Palimpsest, which they think is a fragment from Porphyry's Ad
                      >>> Gedalium.
                      >>> >
                      >>> > My first impression is that it is, instead, a Late Antique/Byzantine
                      >>> > paraphrase of the Ad Gedalium by a rather dim-witted student. But
                      >>> hey,
                      >>> > they've been working on the text for a decade, and I first saw it
                      >>> less
                      >>> > than 24 hours ago. So chances are they're right and I'm wrong*.
                      >>> >
                      >>> > Best, Mike
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> > (*P.S.: If that text is by Porphyry, then I'm the King of Siam).
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>>> > > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on
                      >>>> mimes in
                      >>>> > > Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons and
                      >>>> Dancers:
                      >>>> > > Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she
                      >>>> discusses
                      >>>> > > Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
                      >>>> > >
                      >>>> > >
                      >>>> > >
                      >>> >
                      >>> >
                      >>> > Michael Chase
                      >>> > CNRS UPR 76
                      >>> > Paris-Villejuif
                      >>> > France
                      >>> >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      > Well, I would suppose that, if it¹s Porphyry, we would find points of
                      > contact with the commentary of Simplicius, since he makes extensive use of
                      > both Porphyry and Iamblichus. Is that the case?

                      M.C. There are parallels with the commentaries of Porph., Simpl., and
                      Dexippus, but as far as I can none of them word-for word quotations.
                      Similar solutions to problems are often proposed, but usually in kind of
                      sloppy way ("some people say that...", "Boethos says, but would take too
                      long to go into detail..." "Andronicus and several others say...").
                      Doesn't sound to me like the usually meticulous Porphyry. Above all, we
                      find the statement "Aristotle often opposes the Stoics". I can see only
                      two possible explanations for such a statement:
                      1. The author was a moron, or
                      2. The author was writing at a time (very late Antiquity/early Byzantium)
                      when most people, including the author, no longer hade a very good idea of
                      wh the Stoics were.

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


                      Michael Chase
                      CNRS UPR 76
                      Paris-Villejuif
                      France
                    • John Dillon
                      ... and ... Yes, right, that doesn¹t sound like Porphyry. Your proposal is attractive. I suppose the author might have used Porphyry ‹ or perhaps just
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 8, 2012
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >> Oh, that is fascinating news indeed. I thought it was supposed to be
                        >>> >> Peripatetic - ? How did we get to Porphyry? I guess the more that was
                        >>> >> deciphered the more it looked to them like Porphyry...even on a bad
                        >>> >> day?!?
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >> I may have remembered that incorrectly anyway. So, does it add much, the
                        >>> >> work
                        >>> >> itself, whoever wrote it? I guess at some point it will be published.
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >> Is there any information to be gleaned from the fact it appears with the
                        >>> >> Archimedes? Just random luck?
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >> Dennis Clark
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >> --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
                        >>> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >>> >> <mailto:neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com> ,
                        >>> >> "Goya" <goya@...> wrote:
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > I've just had a glimpse of the Zacharias, as well as the 99 other
                        >>>> >>> volumes
                        >>>>> >>> > of the ancient Commentors series at a conference in Wolfson College,
                        >>>>> >>> > Oxford. Looks good.
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > Highlight of the Conference: a presentation by Nigel Wilson, David
                        >>>> >>> Sedley,
                        >>>>> >>> > Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed of their decipherment and
                        >>>>> >>> > translation of the text of the Categories commentary in the
                        >>>> >>> Archimedes
                        >>>>> >>> > Palimpsest, which they think is a fragment from Porphyry's Ad
                        >>>> >>> Gedalium.
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > My first impression is that it is, instead, a Late Antique/Byzantine
                        >>>>> >>> > paraphrase of the Ad Gedalium by a rather dim-witted student. But
                        >>>> >>> hey,
                        >>>>> >>> > they've been working on the text for a decade, and I first saw it
                        >>>> >>> less
                        >>>>> >>> > than 24 hours ago. So chances are they're right and I'm wrong*.
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > Best, Mike
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > (*P.S.: If that text is by Porphyry, then I'm the King of Siam).
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > > Choricus has been recently translated, as you may know. But on
                        >>>>> >>>> mimes in
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > > Late Antiquity you might read Ruth Webb's recent book Demons
                        and
                        >>>>> >>>> Dancers:
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > > Performance in Late Antiquity (Harvard, 2008). Inter alia she
                        >>>>> >>>> discusses
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > > Choricus (and Libanius' oration On Behalf of the Dancers).
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > >
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > >
                        >>>>>>> >>>> > >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>>>> >>> > Michael Chase
                        >>>>> >>> > CNRS UPR 76
                        >>>>> >>> > Paris-Villejuif
                        >>>>> >>> > France
                        >>>>> >>> >
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >>> >>
                        >> >
                        >> > Well, I would suppose that, if it¹s Porphyry, we would find points of
                        >> > contact with the commentary of Simplicius, since he makes extensive use of
                        >> > both Porphyry and Iamblichus. Is that the case?
                        >
                        > M.C. There are parallels with the commentaries of Porph., Simpl., and
                        > Dexippus, but as far as I can none of them word-for word quotations.
                        > Similar solutions to problems are often proposed, but usually in kind of
                        > sloppy way ("some people say that...", "Boethos says, but would take too
                        > long to go into detail..." "Andronicus and several others say...").
                        > Doesn't sound to me like the usually meticulous Porphyry. Above all, we
                        > find the statement "Aristotle often opposes the Stoics". I can see only
                        > two possible explanations for such a statement:
                        > 1. The author was a moron, or
                        > 2. The author was writing at a time (very late Antiquity/early Byzantium)
                        > when most people, including the author, no longer hade a very good idea of
                        > wh the Stoics were.
                        >
                        > Best, Mike
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >> >
                        >> >
                        >
                        > Michael Chase
                        > CNRS UPR 76
                        > Paris-Villejuif
                        > France
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        Yes, right, that doesn¹t sound like Porphyry. Your proposal is attractive. I
                        suppose the author might have used Porphyry ‹ or perhaps just Simplicius, in
                        which case he is not of much interest.


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