Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T23:36:40.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROCLUS, PORPHYRY, ATTICUS AND THE MAKER? REMARKS ON PROCLUS, IN TI. II, 1.393.31–394.5 DIEHL (ATTICUS, FR. 28)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2019

Gerd Van Riel
Gerd Van Riel*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Philosophy, KU Leuven, Belgium
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii (= In Ti.) II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl (which is Atticus, fr. 28 in the edition of Des Places), Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker (ποιητής), which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 681 - 688
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research in preparation of this article was facilitated by a research professorship granted to the author by the Belgian Francqui Foundation.

References

2 Places, E. Des, Atticus: Fragments (Paris, 1977), 77Google Scholar.

3 M. Menchelli, ‘Nota storico-tradizionale al Commento al Timeo di Proclo nelle età macedone, comnena, paleologa tra supporti librari e documentari (il rotolo di Patmos, Eileton 897, il Marc. gr. 195 e la “collezione filosofica”; il Coisl. 322, il Chis. R VIII 58 e il Marc. gr. 194)’, Studia Graeco-Arabica 5 (2015), 145–64Google Scholar; Menchelli, M., ‘Un nuovo codice di Gregorio di Cipro. Il codice di Venezia, BNM, gr. 194, con il Commento al Timeo e le letture Platoniche del Patriarcha tra Sinesio e Proclo’, Scriptorium 64 (2010), 227–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Menchelli, M., Il rotolo di Patmos e i manufatti più antichi del commento di Proclo al Timeo Platonico dalla ‘collezione filosofica’ all'età dei paleologi. Studi preliminari sulla trasmissione di un testo filosofico a Bisanzio (Parma, 2016)Google Scholar.

4 Megna, P., ‘Marsilio Ficino e il commento al Timeo di Proclo’, Studi Medievali e Umanistici, 1 (2003), 93–135Google Scholar.

5 The revision of the dating of the manuscript is, again, Lidia Perria's. Cf. Menchelli, M., ‘Un copista di Planude. Platone ed Elio Aristide in moderne e arcaizzanti di XIII secolo’, Scripta 7 (2014), 193–204Google Scholar; Megna (n. 4), 98.

6 See Van Riel, G., ‘Le ms. Parisinus Coislin. 322 (sigle C) du Commentaire sur le Timée de Proclus : la copie d'une recension byzantine’, RPh 60 (2016), 191–223Google Scholar.

7 Megna (n. 4), 99 n. 1 (the revised dates of the manuscript are Lidia Perria's finding).

8 See my ‘«Tel Glaucos de la mer, couvert de coquillages, d'algues et de pierre». Sur le correcteur anonyme du texte de l’In Timaeum de Proclus dans MS Chis. R.VIII.58’, forthcoming in T. Dorandi and L. Ferroni (edd.), Tempus Quaerendi. Nouvelles expériences philologiques dans le domaine de la pensée de l'Antiquité tardive (Paris [Belles Lettres]).

9 For the dating of manuscript M, see Menchelli (n. 3 [2015]), 147–8.

10 P has three siblings (which must also be considered to be independent witnesses): two Greek MSS, V (= Vaticanus Palatinus gr. 121, s. XVI, containing Book I only) and F (= Marcianus gr. Z.228, s. XIV, containing Books I–II), at least for the first part of the text: up until I, 1.139 … καὶ ὁρᾷς ὅπως |, F is a copy of π, from there onwards it is copied from C. Apart from these, an anonymous medieval Latin translation, preserved in MS Leiden, Vossianus Lat. F100, s. XVI, containing Books I–III (siglum Vs), has been made on the basis of π.

11 See Van Riel (n. 6), 216–21.

12 The medieval Latin translator of Vs, who often intervenes in difficult passages, renders the text as follows: quod nec principiorum que poete assumunt aliquod Platoni conuenit (Voss. Lat. F.100, f. 160v). The Latin version circumvents the difficulties by construing the Greek in the following way: ὅτι οὐδὲ ὧν οἱ ποιηταὶ παραλαμβάνουσιν ἀρχῶν προσήκει τι τῷ Πλάτωνι. This is an attempt at making sense of the text, rather than a literal rendering of the original. It would in principle be possible to assume that the feminine partitive genitive ὧν … ἀρχῶν is singled out by a neuter (οὐδὲ … τι, i.e. οὐδέν)—whereby the correspondence between the Latin neuters aliquod and principia is even easier to see. The problem is, however, that the construction presupposed by this translation requires not only that εἰ ποιητής be changed into οἱ ποιηταί, but also that οἱ ποιηταὶ be considered as the subject of the relative clause, which is a considerable intrusion in the text. Moreover, the sudden reference to the ‘poets’ is awkward indeed, as this discards entirely the point of the passage, which was to discuss Atticus’ views.

13 Festugière, A.J., Proclus, commentaire sur le Timée. Traduction et notes, vol. II (Paris, 1967; repr. 2006), 261Google Scholar.

14 Share, M. in Runia, D. and Share, M. (edd. and transl.), Proclus. Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (Cambridge, 2008), 2.267 n. 343Google Scholar.

15 Share (n. 14).

16 L. Ferroni in an unpublished research presentation.