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
    ... and ... Yes, right, that doesn¹t sound like Porphyry. Your proposal is attractive. I suppose the author might have used Porphyry ‹ or perhaps just
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >>
      >>> >> 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.