The reasons for assuming an established orthodox Stoic school with scholarchs are considered and refuted. The traditional line of Stoics is a diadochic device to link Panaetius, and later, Posidonius, back to Zeno of Citium, using a chain of teachers and pupils. These Stoics were independent teachers sharing a general worldview but differing to a greater or lesser extent in the details.

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)

This study aims to provide a coherent new interpretation of the notorious anti-hedonism of Speusippus, Plato’s nephew and the second scholarch of the Academy, by reconsidering all the relevant sources concerning his attitude toward pleasure—sources that seem to be in tension or even incompatible with each other. By reassessing Speusippus’ anti-hedonism and Aristotle’s response, it also sheds new light on the Academic debate over pleasure in which he and Aristotle participated: This debate is not merely concerned with the truth (...) and credibility of the arguments for or against hedonism; there are also notable differences among the participants in their understanding of the practical significance of evaluating hedonic experiences. This new interpretation allows us to better understand Aristotle’s selective representation of the intra-school debate and some neglected features of his responses to different interlocutors. (shrink)

Scepticism in the Sixth Century? Damascius' Doubts and Solutions Concerning First Principles SARA RAPPE THE Doubts and Solutions Concerning First Principles, an aporetic work of the sixth century Neoplatonist Damascius, is distinguished above all by its dialectical subtlety. Although the Doubts and Solutions belongs to the commentary tradi- tion on Plato's Parmenides, its structure and method make it in many ways unique among such exegetical works. The treatise positions itself, at least in part, as a response to Proclus' metaphysical system. (...) Thus the first principles alluded to in its title refer to a metaphysical structure consisting of five central elements, the Ineffable, the One, and the Noetic Triad, which Damascius both adumbrates in opposition to Proclus' as well as subjects to his own, internal critique. In this article, I will be asking whether or not Damascius' critique of Neoplatonic metaphysics is informed or inspired by ancient Scepticism. No doubt this question catches the reader off guard: if the last exponent of an- cient Scepticism is Sextus Empiricus, how could this sixth-century Neo- platonist Scholarch, the last officially appointed Platonic Successor, revert to a tradition that seemingly disappears for well over three centuries? ~ In what ~As is well known, Damascius modifies Proclus' own exposition of the Parmenidean hypothe- ses, positing a first principle to which he gives the title ~the Ineffable." For those interested in a.. (shrink)

InFam.13.1 Cicero, visiting Athens en route to Cilicia in the summer of 51b.c., writes to C. Memmius L.f., praetor in 58 but by the time of Cicero's communication an exile in Athens after the shambolic consular elections for 53; Memmius was (temporarily, one assumes) absent from Athens in Mytilene, hence the need for Cicero to write to him. This letter, along withAtt.5.11.6 and 19.3, is our focus in the argument that follows, but, to summarize the situation in the very broadest (...) terms, Cicero's concern in it is with Memmius’ intentions regarding a plot of land in Athens occupied by a house of Epicurus, and with the objections to Memmius’ plans that had been raised with Cicero by the scholarch of the Epicurean community in Athens, Patro. (shrink)

It is recognised that Olympiodorus must have had a long career. He is still lecturing on Aristotle in the late 560s as we can deduce from the reference to a comet that appeared in 565ce (In Mete. 52.31), while he clearly learned his Platonism under Ammonius. His Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias, in which Ammonius rather than Proclus is seen as a figure of authority, is sometimes supposed to have been written in the late 520s. His date of birth may presumably (...) be placed within five years of 500 ce,1 though evidence is lacking. While it is hard to compare Platonic with Aristotelian commentaries, there are important differences among the commentaries on Plato that are best explained in terms of Olympiodorus’ growing maturity and his growing familiarity with, and appreciation of, the Athenian school. The pivotal role of Syrianus and Proclus will here be better appreciated, and the refinements of the last scholarch, Damascius, considered. (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)

Less than a century after Plato’s death, the Academy’s scholarch Arcesilaus of Pitane inaugurates a peculiar oral phase of Academic philosophy, deciding not to write philosophical works or openly teach his own doctrines. Scholars often attribute a radical change of direction to the school under his headship, taking early Stoic epistemology to be the primary target of the New Academy’s attack on Stoic philosophy. This paper defends a rival view of Arcesilaus’ Academic revolution. Shifting the focus of that attack (...) from epistemology to ethics, the paper illuminates the continuity in development from Polemo to Arcesilaus and the evidence corroborating this continuity. (shrink)

One of the most discussed parts of Cicero’s De Officiis is a theory (1.107–121), attributed by Cicero to a Stoic scholarch Panaetius, which attributes to all human beings four different roles (personae): our universal or rational nature; a set of our individual natural dispositions or traits; what we are by external circumstances; and the vocation or lifestyle that we freely choose. An appropriate action (officium) is to conform to constraints associated with one or more of these personae. Since Cicero (...) does not provide any clear model for weighing up or harmonizing constraints corresponding with different roles, scholars have worried that this theory is unstable and even conflicting. In particular, our individual inclinations often seem to pull against our reason or virtue. The aim of the first part of this article is to vindicate the cogency of the four-personae account by interpreting the relationship between the first and second persona in terms of the Stoic distinction between virtue and indifferent things. Our individual psychological dispositions are quasi-externals that are to be used well by our reason: they are first-order constraints on our reason, which itself is the second order constraint. Therefore, the first and second personae cannot directly conflict with each other. We are to use the individual dispositions well by choosing in the given circumstances (the third persona) a profession or a way of life (the fourth persona) that best suits these dispositions. In the second part, I am trying to show that this two-order psychological model of the self was adopted by other Stoics after Panaetius, particularly Epictetus and Seneca. All these thinkers distinguished between our universal psychological traits, i.e. our rationality, and individual natural psychological dispositions that are to be used well by our reason. I also provide an assessment of how this psychological model bears on recent debates in the scholarship about the Stoic philosophy of self, and suggest how it was motivated by developments in the Stoic ethics. (shrink)

Damaskios (5./6. Jh.) ist der letzte Scholarch der Platonischen Akademie und zugleich der letzte systematische Denker der paganen Antike. Die von Paşcalău vorgelegte Arbeit untersucht die zentralen Themen der Damaskenischen Metaphysik, deren originellster Zug in der Überbietung des neuplatonischen Transzendenz-Diskurses und in der Setzung eines Prinzips jenseits des „Einen" besteht. Die Dialektik, die Damaskios entwickelt, um vom „Unsagbaren" jenseits des Einen zu sprechen, bildet zweifellos die konsequenteste Theorie des Absoluten in der abendländischen Geistesgeschichte. Paşcalău analysiert Damaskios’ Argumente für die (...) Annahme eines absolut transzendenten Prinzips sowie die Methodik, die zu einem „unartikulierbaren Bewusstsein" des Absoluten hinleitet. Im Lichte des vertieften Transzendenzbewusstseins erweisen sich alle Konzepte der Metaphysik als „unartikulierbare Begriffe" (arrhetoi ennoiai), die „das Unsagbare" einzuholen versuchen und dabei ständig scheitern. Paşcalău zeigt, dass die Vorwürfe des „Mystizismus", die vielfach gegen Damaskios vorgebracht wurden, eben aufgrund dieser radikalisierten Theorie des Absoluten unhaltbar sind: Die unio mystica der Seele mit dem „Einen" scheitert bei Damaskios wegen der Einheits-Transzendenz des „Unsagbaren". Was bleibt, ist die Einsicht in die Unerreichbarkeit des ersten Urgrundes und die Selbstbescheidung des Menschen angesichts dieser „überwältigenden Wahrheit". (shrink)

Around 16 August of 45 B.C. Cicero wrote a brief letter to Atticus in which he reminds Atticus to send the books of the Epicurean scholarch Phaedrus that he had requested. The Greek words in the text of his request have been corrupted through the centuries.

Our primary evidence for the contribution of Cleanthes, the second Stoic scholarch, to the school’s distinctive theory of cyclical ekpyrosis (conflagration) is limited to a single difficult passage found in Stobaeus attributed to Arius Didymus. Interpretations of this text have largely proceeded by emendation (von Arnim, Meerwaldt) or claims of misconstrual or misunderstanding (Hahm). In recent studies, Salles and Hensley have taken the passage at face value and reconstructed opposed interpretations of Cleanthes’ position. The former suggests that it differs (...) significantly from that of Zeno and Chrysippus. Both the sequence of elemental transformation and its scope are said to be challenged by Cleanthes, suggesting cosmogony was a deeply controversial area in the early Stoa. I resist this interpretation of the evidence while also attempting to read the text without textual correction. Hensley, on the other hand, finds all three to be in strict harmony. Here I advocate for a middle ground where Cleanthes is closer to the positions of both Zeno and Chrysippus, but I also find room for his development of Stoic cosmogony as composed of a series of discrete stages radiating outwards from the middle. We are left with a clearer, more nuanced picture of how Stoic natural philosophy develops in its early period. (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.

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.

This work reconstructs the original theory of natural law as developed by the early Stoic scholarchs, explains its fundamental differences from our traditional conception of natural law, and considers the philosophical motivation for this transformation of the original theory. For the nearly Stoics, natural law corresponds not to a determinate code of laws or precepts, as in Aquinas, but to a certain mental disposition, namely the perfectly rational and consistent conduct of the wise man. The content of the moral conduct (...) enjoined by natural law is specified by "virtuous actions" rather than "appropriate actions" . ;In the Introduction I discuss the central differences between ancient and modern theories of natural law, outline the plan of my project, and explain how the early Stoic theory of natural law differs quite radically from the Thomistic conception of the subject. Next I reconstruct the original form and motivation of the theory from the fragments of the early Stoic scholarchs, explain its relation to their ethics and political philosophy, and show that its original motivation was to offer a better answer than Plato had succeeded in giving to the problems he raised in the Republic. In the third chapter I reconstruct and examine critically Carneades' attack on the Stoic theory. Finally, I argue that Antiochus of Ascalon introduced a simple but fundamental modification of the early Stoic theory, which radically changed its orientation and laid the basis for the Thomistic theory. To support his view about the unity of doctrine of the "ancients", Antiochus revised natural law so as to enjoin kathekonta rather than katorthomata, thus making the content of natural law correspond to a determinate class of precepts. I conclude with some general remarks on why Cicero chose Antiochus' version of natural law as the basis for his De Legibus. In an Appendix I argue that the Stoics' theory had little if any substantive influence on Roman Jurisprudence. (shrink)

The Old Academy developed in an unplanned fashion and, as its structure evolved, changes in leadership and institutional culture were mirrored by shifting Academic historical traditions. As the Old Academy became an institution that presented a systematized philosophy, its leadership placed increased emphasis upon traditions about Plato and other Academic leaders that illustrated the power and practical application of this Academic teaching. This suggests a conscious attempt by the scholarchs of the Old Academy to craft a distinctive institutional identity centred (...) as much upon the character and exemplary lifestyle of its leadership as upon its specific doctrinal teaching. (shrink)