Simplicius reports that Xenocrates and Andronicus reproached Aristotle for positing an excessive number of categories, which can conveniently be reduced to two: τὰ καθ᾽αὑτά and τὰ πρός τι. Simplicius, followed by several modern commentators, interprets this move as being equivalent to a division into substance and accidents. I aim to show that, as far as Xenocrates is concerned, this interpretation is untenable and that the substance-accidents contrast cannot be equivalent to Xenocrates’ per se-relative one. Rather, Xenocrates (...) aimed to stress the primacy of Plato’s binary distinction of beings, as presented at Sophist 255c13–4, over Aristotle’s list of the categories. (shrink)

Ancient critics reproached Xenocrates for beginning his work on the dialectic with a discussion of voice, and until now the question why he did so has never been systematically explored. Neither do we know why Xenocrates counted syllables, as Plutarch reports, and how he arrived at such an implausibly high number. In the first part of this paper, I show that Xenocrates’ interest in voice was suggested by Plato’s discussion of letters in his later dialogues, such as (...) the Theatetus, the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Philebus. Second, a fragment from Sextus attributed to Xenocrates confirms that Xenocrates allowed for various ‘levels’ of elements, and that explains why Theuth’s method, recommended in the Philebus, is applied to syllables. Finally, I address the very possibility of knowing the actual number of syllables and words, and address some of the problems connected to the reconstruction of the mathematical argument. (shrink)

This paper investigates the identity and function of τὰ μεταξύ in Aristotle and the Early Academy by focussing primarily on Aristotle’s criticisms of Xenocrates of Chalcedon, the third scholarch of Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s direct competitor. It argues that a number of passages in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (at Β 2, Μ 1-2, and Κ 12) are chiefly directed at Xenocrates as a proponent of theories of mathematical intermediates, despite the fact that Aristotle does not mention Xenocrates there. Aristotle (...) complains that the advocates for mathematical intermediates produce theories that are ontologically and epistemologically inefficient (related to, but not confined by, the “Uniqueness Problem”); that their so-called “intermediates” feature properties opposed to those of the forms on which those intermediates are thought to depend; and that what is μεταξύ must be between objects of a different genus. In all three cases, Aristotle’s criticisms are shown to be reactions to the metaphysics and cosmology of Xenocrates, especially his doctrine of the intermediary demonic isosceles triangle souls. Xenocrates emerges as a prime candidate for Aristotle’s critique of Platonist τὰ μεταξύ theories – equal to, and possibly even exceeding, Plato as target. (shrink)

In the second century of our era the Athenian Platonist, Atticus, claimed that it was clear not only to philosophers but perhaps even to ordinary people that the heritage left by Plato was the immortality of the soul. Plato had expounded the doctrine in various and manifold ways and this was about the only thing holding together the Platonic school. Atticus is but one witness to the prominence accorded the soul in discussions and debates among later Platonists. But while questions (...) concerning the origin, constitution, and destiny of the human soul are relatively well attested for Middle Platonism, not to mention Neoplatonism, we know much less about these topics among Plato's immediate successors in the Academy, Speusippus of Athens and Xenocrates of Chalcedon . Both wrote treatises on the soul , but these have been lost along with their other, numerous writings. Because the least that can be said is that Speusippus and Xenocrates upheld the immortality of the soul , any snippet of information that might tell us more deserves close consideration. (shrink)

This paper concerns three chief aspects of Xenocrates’ exegetical activity as head of the Platonic Academy, his interpretation of certain key passages of Plato, his appropriation of Pythagoras and the Pythagorean tradition, and his exegesis of the poets, notably Homer, Hesiod and the Orphic poems, thus setting the stage for later developments in Platonism.

This paper offers a reconstruction of Xenocrates’ theory of indivisibles which would not commit him to the idea of ‘jerky motion’ criticized by Aristotle in Physica VI, yet would perfectly square with Plato’s Timaeus, the basis of Xenocrates’ canon. Relying on Alexander’s, Porphyry’s, and Themistius’s accounts of his theory, as well on a detailed analysis of De lineis insecabilibus, I suggest that Xenocrates’ minima, contrary to what Aristotle implies, are not to be understood as more or less (...) stable particulars, like tiny chunks of matter, moving about or leaping in physical space from point A to point B. Yet Xenocrates’ minima do remain ‘physical’ and ‘corporeal’ in a more Platonic sense of these words, not presupposing any kind of leaping, jumping, or jerking. This explains why Xenocrates associated the sensible realm with one of the three Fates, namely Clotho. (shrink)

The philosophical practices undertaken in Plato's Academy remain, in the words of Cherniss, a 'riddle'. Yet surviving accounts of the views of the first two scholarchs of Plato's Academy after his death, Speusippus and Xenocrates, reveal a sophisticated engagement with their teacher's ideas concerning the pursuit of knowledge and the ends of philosophy. Speusippus and Xenocrates transform Plato's views on epistemology and happiness, and thereby help to lay the groundwork for the transformation of philosophy in the Hellenistic era.

Xenocrates of Athens was a sculptor and theoretician of the 3rd cen. B.C., whose now lost writings were used as basic sources by Pliny the Elder in his 34th and 35th Books of Natural History, about Sculpture and Painting respectively. It is strongly believed that the progressive model of the development of art in both books has Xenocratian origins: influenced by the tradition of Democritus, Xenocrates had explained the evolution of art as a process of resolution of artistic (...) problems. His narrative was, though, a descriptive one without a theoretical or philosophical background. A similar case had prevailed in the Historiography of Art for many centuries, up to the beginnings of the 20th cen., when the rise of Philosophical Hermeneutics changed the picture. Art Historians began to create theories and methods trying for the first time to explain at a theoretical level the phenomena both of the development of art and of the capability of later perceivers to understand previous artworks and their changes through time. Ernst Gombrich’s theory that combines modern and postmodern ideas is to be understood as influenced both by the Xenocratian idea that there is always an innovative person who first overcomes traditional methods triggering the progress of art’s development and by the Popperian notion of “trial and error” as the main schema for the development of science. (shrink)

In the twenty-fourth aporia of Theophrastus' Metaphysics, there appears an important, if ‘bafflingly elliptical’, ascription to Plato and the ‘Pythagoreans’ of a theory of reduction to the first principles via ‘imitation’. Very little attention has been paid to the idea of Platonic and ‘Pythagorean’ reduction through the operation of ‘imitation’ as presented by Theophrastus in his Metaphysics. This article interrogates the concepts of ‘reduction’ and ‘imitation’ as described in the extant fragments of Theophrastus’ writings – with special attention to his (...) Metaphysics – in an attempt to make sense of how, precisely, Theophrastus characterizes the metaphysical systems of Plato and the ‘Pythagoreans’. A fuller examination of Aporia 24 produces important new understandings of the nature of the Early Academy in the mid fourth century B.C.E. Specifically, by ascribing the concept of reduction via ‘imitation’ to Plato and the ‘Pythagoreans’, Theophrastus is actually describing theories about the structure of the universe held by an important Platonist competitor and the contemporary head of the Academy in Athens, Xenocrates of Chalcedon (396/5–314/13 B.C.E.), who (a) took it upon himself to establish a Platonic doctrine that could be associated with his master’s writings and (b) coordinated that doctrine with the philosophical precepts of the Pythagoreans. As a consequence, we are prompted to question Aristotle’s famous ascription of a theory of ‘imitation’ to the metaphysics of the genuine contemporary or recently deceased Pythagoreans (such as Philolaus of Croton or Archytas of Tarentum) and consider how Xenocrates’ writings on Plato and the ‘Pythagoreans’ might be informing both Theophrastus’ and Aristotle’s descriptions of the Platonic and Pythagorean philosophical system(s). (shrink)

The author argues, that the exigencies of inter‐school rivalry, initially between the Academy and the Peripatos, but then between later Platonists and both Stoics and Aristotelians, demanded that Platonism become more formalized than it was left by Plato himself, and that it was primarily Xenocrates, in a vast array of treatises, both general and particular, who provided the bones of this organized corpus of doctrine. Not that the Platonists were ever subject to anything like a monolithic orthodoxy. Platonic doctrine (...) was not anything handed down centrally, from above; it was rather a self‐regulating system, in which everyone knew what it meant, broadly, to be a Platonist, and managed to stay within those parameters, while squabbling vigorously with each other, as well as with the other schools. (shrink)

The Heirs of Plato is the first book exclusively devoted to an in-depth study of the various directions in philosophy taken by Plato's followers in the first seventy years or so following his death in 347 BC--the period generally known as 'The Old Academy'. Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Polemon, the three successive heads of the Academy in this period, though personally devoted to the memory of Plato, were independent philosophers in their own right, and felt free to develop his heritage (...) in individual directions. Dillon's clear and accessible book fills a significant gap in our understanding of Plato's immediate philosophical influence, and will be of great value to scholars and historians of ancient philosophy. (shrink)

It is a well-established opinion in the literature that the immediate circle of Plato’s disciples maintained that the generation of the cosmos described in the Timaeus was to be understood as an illustrative, or educational metaphor. On this account, Plato’s students were the first to hold an eternalist, metaphorical reading of the generation of the world, challenged by the Peripatos. When criticising their position in the De Caelo, however, Aristotle describes Early Academic philosophers as holding the more nuanced view that (...) the world is ‘indestructible and yet generated’ (ἄφθαρτον μὲν […] γενόμενον δέ). Is it possible to make any sense of this formulation and restore a different position for Early Academic philosophers? In this paper, I claim that the standard reading can be challenged and that there is ground to believe that Speusippus and Xenocrates held that the world is generated but everlasting. What they denied having happened in time and said should be understood as an illustrative metaphor is the transition from the absence of an order to order or, in other words, the cosmogonic process itself. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Plato's Method in TimaeusAryeh FinkelbergIIn the long dispute between advocates of the metaphorical and the literal interpretations of the Timaeus creation story the exegetic potential of the dialogue has been exhaustively presented, yet with no decisive outcome,1 for, as has been repeatedly recognized, the issue can hardly be settled by a direct appeal to the text.2 This being the case, assistance has been sought in the evidence of Plato's (...) immediate disciples, but here again the discussion reaches a deadlock: partisans of the literal construal appeal to the authority of Aristotle, who censures Plato for admitting that the universe is created,3 while champions of the metaphorical interpretation address themselves to the Academy, who insist that Plato maintained the ungeneratedness of the world.4 Yet in seeking support from the authority of Plato's pupils, scholars seem to overlook the fact that the modern controversy takes a different shape from the one between the early Academy and Aristotle, and that on the point now disputed Plato's disciples did not disagree at all.In their insistence that Timaeus exhibits inconsistencies suggesting a systematic approach behind the chronological account, adherents of the metaphorical interpretation take these inconsistencies as a discrepancy [End Page 391] between the content and the form of the dialogue.5 Accordingly, they regard the cosmogonical narrative as a kind of circumlocution for a non–cosmogonical doctrine, a fact supposedly revealed by Plato in many hints, dispersed throughout the dialogue, aimed at falsifying the chronological order of the account and thus intended to induce the reader to strip off the cosmogonical disguise.6 This approach turns the dialogue into a pointless and unnecessarily misleading equivocation.7 Besides, this construal is historically unwarranted, for, as Robert Hackforth put it disagreeing with F. M. Cornford, it deviates "from the line taken by Xenocrates himself" in "arguing, not that Plato spoke of the coming into being of the universe, but that he never really spoke of it at all."8Shaped as a rejoinder to the metaphorical interpretation, the approach [End Page 392] of upholders of the literal interpretation also comes short of meeting the problem adequately. In rejecting the view of the Timaeus narrative as metaphorical and advocating its plain sense these scholars infer, or rather take for granted, that the chronological account must represent Plato's genuine position. The inference is fallacious: Timaeus may be a truly cosmogonical account, but it does not necessarily follow that Plato's position must have been cosmogonical.The view of the Timaeus cosmogonical narrative as no more than a translucent metaphor of a non–cosmogonical doctrine may thus be abandoned and the discrepancies presumably exhibited by the account not construed as between the atemporal content and chronological form of the dialogue, but rather as between Plato's general systematic approach and his chronological account in Timaeus. According to this interpretation, the chronological exposition would be a strategy adopted by Plato for certain methodological reasons. Since this construal, which I conventionally term "methodological," would share with the literal one the view that the immediate purport of the Timaeus account is cosmogonical, the dispute would focus on the question of how this purport is related to Plato's general position; the literal interpretation thus would be the claim that the cosmogony is not merely the immediate purport of the Timaeus narrative but its ultimate purpose.9Properly stated, the problem of the interpretation of the Timaeus narrative addresses the question of whether the cosmogonical account is a self–sufficient teaching attesting Plato's ultimate position, or rather a methodological device. This is indeed a proper formulation of the exegetical alternative, for precisely such was the controversy between Aristotle and the Platonists. Both sides were unanimous in regarding the Timaeus account as cosmogonical, but they differed in that Aristotle considered the Timaeus cosmogony as Plato's doctrine, while the Platonists defended the master, insisting that this was but "for the sake of " an account fashioned after the method of geometers, and [End Page 393] that his true approach was systematic.10 Whether in their construal of Timaeus the Platonists were guided by the master's advice or by some other motive... (shrink)

In his biography of Polemon, head of the Academy from 313 to 269, Diogenes Laertius comments on Polemon's fondness for Sophocles after detailing Polemon's relationship with his predecessor, Xenocrates : ἐῴκει δὴ ὁ Πολέμων κατὰ πάντα ἐζηλωκέναι τὸν Ξενοκράτην· καὶ ἐρασθῆναι αὐτοῦ φησιν Ἀρίστιππος ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ Περὶ παλαιᾶς τρυφῆς. ἀεὶ γοῦν ἐμέμνητο ὁ Πολέμων αὐτοῦ, τήν τ' ἀκακίαν καὶ τὸν αὐχμὸν ἐνεδέδυτο τἀνδρὸς καὶ τὸ βάρος οἱονεὶ Δώριός τις οἰκονομία. ἦν δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφοκλῆς, καὶ μάλιστα ἐν ἐκείνοις ὅπου (...) κατὰ τὸν κωμικὸν τὰ ποιήματα αὐτῷκύων τις ἐδόκει συμποιεῖν Μολοττικός,καὶ ἔνθα ἦν κατὰ τὸν Φρύνιχονοὐ γλύξις οὐδ' ὑπόχυτος, ἀλλὰ Πράμνιος.ἔλεγεν οὖν τὸν μὲν Ὅμηρον ἐπικὸν εἶναι Σοφοκλέα, τὸν δὲ Σοφοκλέα Ὅμηρον τραγικόν.It would seem that Polemon imitated Xenocrates in all respects. In the fourth book of On the Luxury of the Ancients, Aristippos says that he loved him. Certainly Polemon kept him in mind and, like him, wore that simple, dry dignity that is proper of the Dorian mode. He also loved Sophocles, particularly in those passages where it seemed as if, in the words of the comic poet, ‘a Molossian dog co-authored’ plays with him and where the poet was, in the words of Phrynichus, ‘neither bland nor doctored but Pramnian’. Thus he would call Homer the epic Sophocles and Sophocles the tragic Homer. The main source of Diogenes Laertius' Life of Polemon is Antigonus of Carystus, who was active in Athens and Pergamon around the mid third century. In addition to being generally considered a reliable author, Antigonus is also chronologically close to Polemon's lifetime. He is also the source of Philodemus' History of Philosophers, a work preserved by two important papyri from Herculaneum. Philodemus, too, mentions Polemon's admiration for Sophocles, although he gives a shorter version than Diogenes Laertius: λέγεται δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφοκλῆς γενέσθαι καὶ μά || λιστα τὸ ΠΑ[.]Α[……….] | τῆς φωνῆς καὶ παρα[….] ἀποδέχεσθαι. In Dorandi's translation, Philodemus records that ‘si dice che [Polemone] fu ammiratore di Sofocle e soprattutto ne apprezzò l'audacia e ciò che suonava duro’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:A Less Familiar Plato: From Phaedo to Philebus by Kevin CorriganKristian SheeleyCORRIGAN, Kevin. A Less Familiar Plato: From Phaedo to Philebus. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2023. xi + 306 pp. Cloth, $110.00Corrigan makes a substantial contribution to the body of Plato scholarship that offers rigorous and textually supported corrections to [End Page 711] superficial (yet all too common) readings of Plato’s dialogues. The book covers a range (...) of core Platonic topics such as embodiment and selfhood, participation in the divine, the critique of artworks in the Republic, the form of the good, love, friendship, desire, and the relationship between mythos and logos. Corrigan devotes his primary attention to the so-called middle dialogues and the Philebus, but to varying degrees he engages with many more Platonic dialogues as well as other philosophers in the Platonic tradition.Chapter 1 combats common interpretations of the Phaedo claiming that Plato wholly denigrates the body and idealizes the state of disembodiment that can only be fully reached in death. Corrigan’s opponents claim that Plato’s negative comments about the body encourage an unhealthy attitude toward the body and the emotions. Corrigan responds by thoroughly showing how the passages about body–soul separation, when read in view of the dialogue as a whole, instead reveal a “model of positive embodiment” that is “full of conscientious protest, good hopes, thoughts, arguments, refutations, and friendship.” Next, Corrigan turns his focus to passages from both Plato and Aristotle that shed light on classic perplexities surrounding the key concept of participation. He argues that “participation” is not the best option for translating methexis or its related terms, and he suggests “having of” or “sharing” as alternative translations. If they are correctly understood, Plato’s discussions of the forms and their relationship to particulars are not vulnerable to criticisms concerning infinite regress or self-predication issues according to Corrigan’s analysis. Chapters 3 and 4 confront Plato’s well-known criticisms of artworks in the Republic and beyond. Here Corrigan makes a highly intriguing point about the role of what he calls “the intelligible painter” in Republic 6 and 7, through which Socrates both sketches and exemplifies “positive philosophical art” as an alternative to the traditional art he criticizes in books 2, 3, and 10. The intelligible painter uses the good as his “perfect and sufficient model” to cultivate himself and others through education, just as Socrates fashions the images of the sun-good, the cave, and other images for the sake of benefitting his interlocutors.In chapter 5 Corrigan draws inspiration from Plotinus’s nuanced understanding of the famous statement in the Republic that the form of the good is “beyond being.” According to the view Corrigan works out, the form of the good is the ground of all intelligibility, and so its relationship to everything that is intelligible can be understood, but it is not in itself intelligible. Chapter 6 takes a close look at the Philebus in light of the Republic’s discussions of the forms and dialectic, the One and the indefinite Dyad of the “unwritten doctrines,” and the work of Speusippus and Xenocrates. Corrigan then shows in chapter 7 how Plato reveals the wide variety of ways in which myths can be used, ranging from the misleading tales of unwise poets to Plato’s own use of stories to aid philosophical logos. Finally, chapters 8 and 9 focus on Plato’s dialogues concerning love and friendship: Symposium, Phaedrus, Lysis, and First Alcibiades, which Corrigan regards as authentic. Corrigan’s main [End Page 712] objective is to show that these dialogues collectively provide a “guide for the perplexed” in matters of love that, contrary to modern criticisms of Plato, is both sensitive and relevant to real, complex, and concrete relationships between humans.As mentioned above, Corrigan sometimes uses terminology and conceptual resources from authors throughout the various ancient and medieval Platonic traditions, including Aristotle and his inheritors. Corrigan’s interpretive method often aims to show that the dialogues harmonize with one another as well as with Plato’s “unwritten teachings,” and he argues that some Neoplatonic interpretations of Plato are correct. This interpretive approach might be seen as... (shrink)

'the whole work is remarkably fresh, vivid and attractively written psychologists will be grateful that a work of this kind has been done ... by one who has the scholarship, science, and philosophical training that are requisite for the task' - Mind This renowned three-volume collection records chronologically the steps by which psychology developed from the time of the early Greek thinkers and the first writings on the nature of the mind, through to the 1920s and such modern preoccupations as (...) criminal and animal psychology. It is only in relatively recent times that psychology has been considered an empirical science independent of philosophy. Brett's account is thus concerned with the broadest definition of psychology, taking in such philosophical aspects as the relation of mind and body, thought processes, etc. For each period he gives an account of the state of the sciences which influenced psychology, the state of psychology itself, the influence psychology had on other areas, and the applications of psychological theories. Examining a huge range of figures, he describes their attitudes on fundamental questions and their contribution to the progress of the subject, as well as the history of the different methods of inquiry. The thinkers he discusses range from Aristotle, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, and Xenocrates to Proclus, the Arabian teachers, Magnus, Duns Scotus, and Ockham from Galileo, Descartes, Gassendi, and Cudworth to Locke, Berkeley, Condillac, and Kant from Reid, Stewart, Herbart, and Schopenhauer to Bain, Spencer, Mill and Darwin. Surprisingly clear and easy to read, Brett's account succeeds in illuminating the nature of psychology as well as its history. It remains a classic overview of the subject from its broad roots in philosophy through to the independent empirical science of the modern era. --a scarce work, rarely found as a complete set --a classic work - all historians of psychology and philosophy should have A History of Psychology. (shrink)

This paper deals with the reasons for literal interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus (Aristoteles) against non-literal (Speusippus and Xenocrates). Its starting point is “dichotomy” between poetry (mythos) and philosophy that we can find, as well, in some commentary on the Genesis of Moses. But, instead dichotomy here is suggested some kind of iterative reading: the Timaeus of Plato is the poetry because God’s act of creation is the poetry, too. Artistic elements in this dialogue of Plato are in the function (...) of his cosmogonical realism. It is supported with the thesis that the purpose of Plato’s Timaeus is not pedagogical or didactical, but soteriological; its aim is salvation of man. (shrink)

__. L’articolo analizza la descrizione della natura delle piante e la tacita giustificazione del vegetarianismo fornite da Platone nel _Timeo_. Tale pratica alimentare sembra assumere un’utilità esclusivamente fisiologica: potrebbe darsi che Platone si fosse opposto a quanti professavano il vegetarianismo in qualità di mezzo necessario per purificare l’anima e per raggiungere la felicità, come gli orfici, i pitagorici, Empedocle ma anche il suo discepolo Senocrate. Attraverso il particolare valore attribuito a una dieta vegetariana, Platone priva di validità la pretesa degli (...) altri filosofi: solo lo studio delle idee permette di ottenere la felicità. _Abstract_. The aim of this paper is to analyse Plato’s description of plants and his tacit justification of vegetarianism in the _Timaeus_. This practice seems to possess exclusively a physiological relevance: I argue that Plato is opposing the idea of vegetarianism as a superior way to purify one’s soul and achieve happiness, how it was being professed by the Orphics, the Pythagoreans, Empedocles, and even by his disciple Xenocrates. In the _Timaeus_, with the justification of vegetarianism only for physiological purposes, Plato is discrediting other philosophers’ conception of vegetarianism and perfect life: only the study of the noetic world grants ultimate happiness. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions ARISTOTLE'S ALLEGED "REVOLT" AGAINST PLATO Hermippus' most conspicuous contribution to Aristotle's biography probably was his determined effort to depict Aristotle as the founder of an original school of philosophy which was wholly independent of Plato and Platonic teachings. Among the several and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories about Aristotle he invented or propagated, the most startling was the account, subsequently widely accepted (and widely exploited by (...) the detractors of Aristotle), that after having been a disciple of Plato for a while, he seceded from the Academy and from Plato's philosophic teachings while Plato was still alive. 1 Accordingly, he owed little to Plato and to the Academy. This story, invented and propagated by an inveterate Peripatetic (Hermippus), was intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius of Aristotle which developed in complete independence of Plato and necessitated a break with the master's teachings. In devising his argument, Hermippus might have made use of a report, found in some of Aristotle's ancient biographers, that a few brash young men (members of the Academy?) revolted against Plato and, in a spirit of independence, defiance and antagonism, attempted to start a school of their own which would rival the intellectual standing of the Academy. 2 Hermippus, it appears, subsequently identified these young "rebels" with Aristotle, a substitution convenient to Hermippus" aim to depict Aristotle as a wholly independent and totally original philosopher who owed nothing whatever to Plato and his teachings. In all likelihood, Diogenes Laertius' statement that Aristotle "seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive," a is just an echo either of a statement made by Hermippus himself or is a conclusion drawn from the several unpleasant stories about Aristotle invented and reported by some of Aristotle's detractors. According to these derogatory stories, there existed many serious personal as well as doctrinal 4 disagreements or rifts between Plato and the Stagirite--disagreeDiogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 3, and ibid., XV. 2. 13 (Aristoxenus); Aelian, Varia Historia, IV. 9; Theodoretus, Graecorum Affectionum Curatio, IV. 46; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII. 12; Philoponus, Comment. in Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora, CIAG, vol. XIII, part 3, pp. 133, 30 ft. 2 See Aelius Aristides, Oratio XLVI, 249. 10. See also note 1, supra. s Diogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Vita Aristotelis Marciana 9; Vita Aristotelis Latina 9. 9 See, for instance, Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 14 (Moralia, III5A); Cicero, Academica I. 9. 33; Eusebius, op. cir., XV. 2, passim; Diogenes Laertius III. 37; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 5 (Migne, PG. vol. VI. p. 247); Cyrillus, Contra Julianum II. 47; Proclus, [91] 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ments whichmarred the relations between these two men and which were indicative of Aristotle's ingratitude, bad taste and unwarranted conceit. The report of Diogenes Laertius, in an oblique manner, may also refer to the fact that already during his active association with the Platonic Academy (367-348 B.c.), that is, in his On (the) Ideas and On the Good, Aristotle had begun to disagree with, and criticize, some of Plato's fundamental teachings. It may also, in a distorted form, refer to the following specific incident which, however, cannot be verified: According to Aristoxenus, during the absence of Plato in Syracuse (and while Heracleides of Pontus was the "acting scholarch" of the Academy),5 some unnamed young members of the Academy, or "students" or, perhaps, some "outsiders " attempted to start a rival school (within the Academy?).6 As a matter of fact, Aelian, who apparently dramatizes this incident, reports that during Plato's last years, that is, some time after Plato's return from his third and last voyage to Syracuse, a serious conflict or confrontation arose within the Academy. Aristotle, together with some of his friends, or "conspirators," we are told, harrassed and molested the aging Plato by constantly putting questions to him, by arguing with him in an insolent manner, by contradicting him on every point, and by attempting to involve him in hair-splitting dialectics. At the time Xenocrates was in Chalcedon, and Speusippus was gravely ill. Hence, neither of them could come to the succor of Plato. In... (shrink)

In this chapter, Hankinson discusses the origins of syncretism, or the growing convergence of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, focusing mainly on the Old Academy Platonists Speusippus and Xenocrates, the empiricist Stoic Posidonius, the lapsed sceptic Antiochus, and the orthodox Aristotelian Alexander of Aphrodisias. Hankinson also discusses Eudorus, Philo of Larissa, and Plutarch, as well as briefly noting the influential Primer on Plato's Doctrines by Alcinous. The importance of the Old Academy is its influence upon the development of later Platonic (...) tradition; Proclus, for instance, credits Xenocrates with a distinction between transcendent and immanent causation that became a central feature of Middle Platonism. Posidonius, a Stoic and Cicero's philosophical mentor, is important to the growing convergence of the schools because he introduced Platonism and Aristotelianism into his account of Stoicism, while Antiochus, a product of Philo of Larissa's sceptical Academy, pursued an eclectic Platonism. Alexander of Aphrodisias was the leading Peripatetic of Alexandria, around the second century ad; he revived an orthodox Aristotelianism, accepting Aristotle's four causes doctrine, and identifying Fate as an efficient cause. (shrink)

This paper traces the philosophical sources of one of the central Christian doctrines concerning deity-the doctrine of the Trinity - from the classical Greek period through to Justin Martyr (114¬ 165 C.E.). A key figure in this continuous line of thought is the Greek Middle Platonic philosopher Numenius of Apamea (fl. ca 150 C.EJ, who followed the Platonic tradition of Xenocrates of Chalcedon (d. 314 B.C.E.).

Après avoir fait la distinction établie par E.D. Hirsch entre le sens d’un texte voulu par l’auteur et les diverses significations qu’il a prises au cours de l’histoire, l’auteur présente les deux lectures actuelles sur l’Idée du Bien chez Platon. La première lecture, dite non ésotériste, recourt au paradigme traditionnel de l’autarcie des dialogues, jadis établi par F. Schleiermacher pour dégager le sens voulu par Platon de ce passage de la République . La seconde lecture recourt à un nouveau paradigme, (...) dit ésotériste, établi par l’École de Tübingen-Milan et cherche le sens voulu par Platon en recourant à son enseignement oral. L’auteur soutient que le sens de ce passage est mieux dégagé par une lecture non ésotériste, tandis que la lecture ésotériste en dégage plutôt les significations que lui ont données les disciples de Platon dans l’Ancienne Académie, tels qu’Aristote, Speusippe et Xénocrate. (shrink)

Discourse on the motives that should encourage us towards the sciences (1725) ; Essay on the causes that can affect minds and characters (1736-1738/1739) -- Dissertation on Roman politics in religion (1716) ; Discourse on Cicero (1717) ; Dialogue between Sulla and Eucrates (1724) -- Notes on England (1729-1731) ; Reflections on the inhabitants of Rome (1732) -- In praise of sincerity (1717?) ; Treatise on duties (1725) ; On consideration and reputation (1725) ; Discourse on the equity that must (...) determine judgments and the execution of laws (1725) ; Dialogue between Xanthippus and Xenocrates (1727) ; Lysimachus (1751) -- Letters from Xenocrates to Pheres (1724) ; On politics (1725) ; Reflections on universal monarchy in Europe (1731-1733) ; Reflections on the character of certain princes and on certain events in their lives (1731-1733) ; Memorandum on the silence to impose on the "Constitution" (1754) -- Memorandum on the debts of state (1715) ; Considerations on the wealth of Spain (1727-1728) -- Defense of the spirit of law (1750). (shrink)

The aim of the work is to preent the connection between the conception of One - έν and the Good - τάγαθόν in Plato's late writings , in the fragments of writings of the members of the First Plato Academy: Philip of Opus , Eudoxos of Knidos, Speusippus, Xenocrates and the chosen Aristotle's writings . In the analysis of the texts all the derivatives of the conception of One and the Good are taken into account. As a research hypothesis (...) the distinction between έν and τό έν is introduced. This distinction can be seen in comprehending έν as One and τό έν as the One . The One is, first of all, a simple and indivisible being.The work consists of two main parts. The first one is devoted to the analysis of the conception of One - έν and the second contains the analysis of the conception of the Good - τάγαθόν. Each part is made up of two chapters, the first of which illustrates the researched conceptions in the chosen Plato's dialogues, his Unwritten Teaching and the fragments of writings of the members of First Plato Academy, and the second shows these conceptions in Aristotle's philosophy. There is a connection between researched conceptions in Plato's philosophy, what is clearly illustrated in the dialogues the Philebus and the Laws. In the Philebus the Good is One, although it consists of many elements, but Plato does not give a reason for that. In the Laws every watchman must be aware that the good is the one, although it is manifested in many different ways. The One principle is identified with the Good in Plato's Unwritten Teaching. The connection can be also noticed in Aristotle's conception of First Mover , which is the God, the highest Good and the One , because it is, as a pure act, the simple and indivisible being. (shrink)

The present short note focuses on Cicero’s De finibus IV 18, 51, a passage which preserves a testimony on Xenocrates (quoted here as magister of Polemon), neglected by the editors of the fragments of Academy’s second scholarch.

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from (...) the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. (shrink)

Neoplatonic Exegeses of Plato's Cosmogony JOHN F. PHILLIPS AMONG THE MANY CONTROVERSIES to which the long history of interpretation of Plato's Timaeus has given rise, that concerning the eternity of the cosmos is one of the most enduring and complex, and the source of almost continuous debate from the time of Xenocrates to the present. The importance to all Platonists of a doctrinally consistent answer to the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning in time is (...) made amply clear in the statement attributed to Iamblichus by Proclus that proper understand- ing of the creation of the world is crucial for the entire theory of Nature. Iamblichus here refers obliquely to the orthodox Platonist position that the universe is not a temporal being subject to decay and destruction. The princi- pal problem for all of them, of course, was that, taken literally, Plato's account of the creation in the Timaeus, particularly the passage 27C-a8C, appears to be an unequivocal affirmation of a temporal beginning to the cosmos. Espe- cially troublesome was Plato's use of the verb y~yovev in Timaeus 28b 7, which seems to be an explicit claim for an &QX1] in time. That this passage did indeed refer to a temporal beginning was a point that was made repeatedly and forcefully by the chief opponents of the Platonists on this issue, the Peripa- tetics, who, following Aristotle, read the Timaeus creation account literally.' To.. (shrink)

The clear affinity between Quintilian's art-criticism and the comparable portions of Pliny's Natural History has often been remarked. Pliny's principal sources for his chapters on art have long been recognized as going back through Varro to the great third-century critics, Xenocrates of Sicyon and Antigonus of Carystus, the latter of whom worked over Xenocrates' treatise and incorporated new material of his own; an earlier Greek source was Duris of Samos, on whom Antigonus drew for the anecdotic element in (...) his tradition. The careful work of many patient scholars has been successful in disentangling to a considerable extent the characteristic contributions of these and other authorities to Pliny's medley of information. On the other hand, Quintilian's incursion into the same field seems never to have been studied independently, but only incidentally to research on the Plinian sources. The purpose of this paper is to examine Quintilian's contribution afresh; my indebtedness to earlier studies, in particular to those of Robert, will be readily apparent. (shrink)

This is an overview of the main schools of philosophy in Rome. The study of the thought of the most significant Roman philosophers (Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius) is presented in reference to the partition between physics, ethics and logic, previously opened by Academician Xenocrates.

All disciplines can count on a noble founder, and the representation of this founder as an authority is key in order to construe a discipline's identity. This book sheds light on how Plato and other authorities were represented in one of the most long-lasting traditions of all time. It leads the reader through exegesis and polemics, recovery of the past and construction of a philosophical identity. From Xenocrates to Proclus, from the sceptical shift to the re-establishment of dogmatism, from (...) the Mosaic of the Philosophers to the Neoplatonist Commentaries, the construction of authority emerges as a way of access to the core of the Platonist tradition. (shrink)

The paper firstly focuses on a rare vox, that is, the verb μετίσχω, as a new finding in two different sources: the Π text of Methaphysics Lambda 1075b19 and the “Ai Khanoum philosophical papyrus” (not only at column II.9, but arguably at II.11 and IV.8–9 as well). Using the verb μετίσχω testifies for a “2.0 version” of the theory of ideas, in a subsequent phase to Plato’s Parmenides. Xenocrates is likely to have played a role. This suggests a deeper (...) connection than previously thought between Aristotelian theories and Plato’s Academy. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Plato's Timaeus as Cultural IconGerard NaddafGretchen J. Reydams-Schils, editor. Plato's Timaeus as Cultural Icon. Notre Dame, IN.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. Pp. xiv + 334. Cloth, $59.95. Paper, $29.95.This volume emanates from an international conference entitled "Plato's Timaeus as Cultural Icon" held at the University of Notre Dame in 2000. In the introduction, the editor and organizer, Gretchen Reydams-Schils (GRS), contends that the title is meant (...) to communicate the considerable influence of Plato's Timaeus on so many different intellectual traditions and asks "What could account for this philosophical and cultural status?" (1).There are thirteen essays by distinguished specialists in the field. For some reason, a number of the essays do not focus on the general theme of the volume and the question GRS raises, "what could account for this philosophical and cultural status?" is never directly, or even indirectly, addressed. In this short review, I will examine the essays in their order of appearance and make some general comments at the end.Mitchell Miller, in the opening essay, argues that the Timaeus must be understood as addressed to a nonphilosophical audience, although he endeavors to show how the philosophically minded could interpret the Timaeus in light of the god-given method, the longer way, of the Philebus (16c-17a). With this in mind, Miller shows that the constitution of the elements and animals in the Timaeus was in fact determined in light of this method. From this perspective, the Timaeus is addressed not only to a nonphilosophical audience—albeit chiefly to these—but also to a philosophical audience.Kenneth Sayre discusses a number of inconsistencies and incoherences in Plato's description/analysis of the Receptacle and concludes that it is nothing short of a "failed experiment." Personally, I find Plato's analysis rather helpful in a manner analogous to the famous similes he employs in the Republic to help us grasp the Form of the Good. Meanwhile, there is nothing in the essay, as with Miller's essay, to indicate why the Timaeus would constitute a cultural icon (unless as a paradigm for opacity and thus as a catalyst for allegorical interpretation, but again this is not Sayre's intent). [End Page 335]John Dillon, with whom the notion of the Timaeus as a cultural icon begins to emerge, emphasizes that most of the members of the Old Academy, including Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Cantor, maintained (contra Aristotle) that Plato did not hold that the universe was created. While it is true, as he notes, that they were in a better position to interpret the master, the fact remains that they all had different interpretations. There is thus a sense in which Dillon's analysis confirms Miller's position that Plato meant the Timaeus for two very different audiences.Carlos Lévy focuses on the difficulty that Cicero had in translating the Timaeus without reverting to Stoic concepts. He argues that a Latin reader, unfamiliar with the Greek, would assume that transcendence is nonexistent and that mind and matter, as with the Stoics, are one. However, Lévy remains silent on why Cicero would not allow Plato to speak for himself, given that this appears to be the norm with many of his other interlocutors. Moreover, it is difficult again to see why the Timaeus would constitute a "cultural icon."Luc Brisson presents the Timaeus in a radical new light. He shows the extent to which the Timaeus, or more precisely the highly exegetical Middle Platonist interpretation of the work, was the primary reference text for the influential Chaldean Oracles. This is an excellent example of the iconic status of the Timaeus, but it is worth noting that the Chaldean Oracles themselves and their doctrine of salvation may have been historically more influential than the Timaeus itself.David Runia's essay is also an excellent example of the iconic influence of Plato's Timaeus, but unlike Brisson, he focuses on a particular feature of the cosmogonical account rather than the entire treatise: how the Timaeus influenced the debate, including with regard to the opening verses of Genesis, on first principles and the doctrine of creation. Runia... (shrink)

Judaism was a mythical, strongly tribal religion with anthropomorphic God in which the leading element was the concept of a covenant between God and the exceptional “chosen people.” Such views produced a strong emphasis on tribal unity and attitude of election and moral superiority vis-à-vis the rest of humanity. Philo must have felt inadequacy of the ancient Judaism and its limitations to compete for the minds of Hellenes with their universalistic philosophical thought. Philo represented a trend in Jewish ideology which (...) attempted, in confrontation with the Greek culture, to assert itself as a valid cosmic view to support the existence of a community. He attempted to reevaluate Hebrew ideology found in the scriptures adopting Greek metaphysical, ethical, and religious doctrines to Judaism.The focus of this article is on Philo’s introduction of the Greek concept of Logos, in the modified version of Xenocrates into Judaism. Philo developed this concept further and transformed from a metaphysical entity into an extension of a divine and transcendental anthropomorphic being and mediator between God and men. Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both Hebrew and Greek traditions developing concepts that were used for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought by providing foundations for Christianity. (shrink)

Les études réunies et publiés dans ce volume sont d'abord concentrées sur les problèmes relatifs à la nature de l'âme en général, notamment par le biais d'une confrontation avec des penseurs antérieurs a Aristote ou qui leur sont contemporains - spécialement Platon et Xenocrate.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the theme of mind-broadening travel in the ancient world, as practised by a series of philosophers, starting with Pythagoras, and including Plato, and then a series of Plato’s disciples, including Xenocrates of Chalcedon, Heraclides of Pontus, and not least Aristotle of Stagira, who were attracted to Athens by reports of the interesting new philosophical school that had been set up there. The theme is continued into later times, with the interesting figure (...) of Antiochus of Ascalon, in the first century BC, and then Plotinus, coming from Egypt to Rome, in the third century AD. I raise the question, without resolving it, of what constitutes philosophical tourism, as opposed to more permanent modes of study, but seek to highlight what seems to me an ongoing feature of philosophical study throughout antiquity and beyond. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Antiphon on Time (B9 D-K)Francis M. DunnThe simplest and clearest formulation of Antiphon's understanding of time is the statement that time is a concept or measure, not a substance (87 B9 Diels-Kranz). This fragment is regularly cited in discussions of Antiphon, but Richard Sorabji has stated that it belongs not to Antiphon the sophist but to a minor peripatetic. He gives no argument in support of this statement,1 but (...) given the potential importance of this fragment both for the views of Antiphon and for early theories of time, we must consider whether or not its attribution is secure.Antiphon or Antiphanes?Fragment 9 in Diels-Kranz is a brief entry from the Placita of Aetius (1.22.6) under the heading, preserved in Stobaeus (1.8.40b):2P, F mrg., PhotiusIn the text of Diels-Kranz, emphasis is used to distinguish the quote or citation proper (νόημα ) from the gloss or clarification that accompanies it (). The distinction seems to me correct: since it is not immediately obvious what it means to regard time as a "concept or measure" (and two thinkers may have done so in different ways), the gloss is an attempt by the compiler to delimit this (shared) view. The delimiting term is relatively late ( with the implied meaning "substance" is not attested before Aristotle and Theophrastus; [End Page 65] cf. LSJ sv III). So if the first thinker cited is Antiphon the sophist, usage confirms that the term was later supplied by the compiler; on the other hand, if we suspend judgment on the identity of Antiphon (or Antiphanes), this late usage does not help to date the view that time is νόημα.This brings us to the attribution of the fragment: was Diels correct in printing? and was he correct in identifying this figure as the Athenian sophist? Taking the first question first, we must consider the possibility that the marginal gloss in F was meant as a correction, and that the lemma assigning the fragment to Antiphanes should be followed. Context, however, clearly indicates otherwise. Under the rubric, the compiler of the Placita3 has assembled the views of various philosophers: Plato, Xenocrates, Hestiaeus of Perinthus, Straton, Epicurus, Critolaus and the Stoics (1.22.1-7). Antiphon the sophist is repeatedly cited in this compilation (2.20.15, 2.28.4, 2.29.3, 3.16.4), whereas Antiphanes the comic poet is never cited at all. The textual confusion arose because this portion of the Placita was extracted by Stobaeus, who also quoted profusely from Antiphanes and other comic poets. To scribes copying Stobaeus, the playwright's name suggested itself more readily than that of the sophist, and the former therefore began to replace the latter.4I have assumed so far (as all editors have done) that the textual variants and entail a choice between Antiphon the sophist and Antiphanes the comic poet. Faced with such a choice, we must choose Antiphon, but Sorabji suggests a third alternative, namely that Antiphon or Antiphanes is a late and obscure peripatetic philosopher. What are the merits of such a suggestion?A Minor Peripatetic?Sorabji's Antiphon (or Antiphanes) is so obscure that he has otherwise vanished without leaving a trace. We must therefore decide if it is [End Page 66] likely that the Placita not only cited such an individual, but made no attempt to distinguish him from well-known authors who bore the same name. It is worth noting that the compiler of the Placita made no particular attempt to rescue from oblivion the beliefs of insignificant thinkers. Under each rubric he is chiefly concerned with reporting the doctrines of influential philosophers such as Thales, Democritus or Aristotle. The range of views on a given topic may be broadened by including lesser figures, but these are almost always easily identifiable and well-attested in other sources. The reasons for the flooding of the Nile (4.1), for example, are taken from Thales, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Eudoxus, Herodotus and Ephorus; the notion that the river is filled from a fresh-water sea is cited from a lesser figure, Euthymenes of Massilia, who is therefore identified by his place of birth... (shrink)

Bion de Borysthène, qui a fréquenté l’école académicienne (Xénocrate), cynique (Cratès) et cyrénaïque (Théodore), ne faisait pas partie des listes traditionnelles d’athées en circulation dans l’Antiquité, mais on lui attribue pourtant la formule athée d’après laquelle « il n’y a pas de dieux » (Diogène Laërce, IV, 55). L’examen des témoignages montre qu’il pouvait être qualifié d’athée à deux niveaux. Tout d’abord, aussi bien au niveau théorique que pratique, il adoptait une attitude très critique à l’égard des pratiques religieuses et (...) des récits mythiques traditionnels dont il mettait en valeur les contradictions et plus largement contestait la partition du réel entre sacré et profane (Sénèque, Des bienfaits, VII 7, 1-2). Par ailleurs, Bion s’est également opposé à la théologie philosophique épicurienne et, en particulier, à son anthropomorphisme. Il s’appuyait, entre autres, sur une thèse (« chaque genre de vivants a une forme particulière dans son genre particulier », Démétrius Lacon, De la forme du dieu, XIX, 13), compatible avec l’épicurisme. Pour cette raison, Démétrius Lacon entreprit d’y répondre en montrant que cette prémisse, pouvant aussi servir à contester les théologies astrales (platoniciennes ou stoïciennes), ne vaut que pour les êtres accessibles par la sensation, ce qui n’est pas le cas des dieux. Cette polémique, dont l’enjeu est la limite de l’application du principe d’isonomie, a laissé des traces jusque dans le De signis de Philodème. (shrink)