Christina Hoenig

This article presents a cross-contextual examination of St. Augustine's views concerning nonhuman animals. It aligns seemingly disparate conclusions of previous studies by considering both material and metaphorical nonhuman animals across Augustine's writings and by integrating the role he assigns to them into his broader metaphysical framework. While Augustine is found to assign instrumental value to all aspects of material creation, nonhuman animals are shown to carry a particularly complex significance due to their proximity to humans in his hierarchical account of creation.

Recent scholarship on Plato'sCratylus has yielded interpretations that assign various functions of philosophical importance to the dialogue's lengthy etymological section. Barney considers the section an ‘agonistic display’ in which Socrates beats contemporary practitioners of etymology at their own game while, at the same time, offering a cosmological theory intended for serious intellectual competition. In this context, Barney emphasizes the importance of Parmenides, a charioteer who journeys towards Truth, as a literary point of reference for Socrates’ own etymological quest after the true meaning of names which, from Cratylus’ naturalist perspective on language, are considered indicative of their referents’ essential nature. The contents of the etymologies may be a ‘rational reconstruction’ of Cratylus’ linguistic naturalism. Sedley stresses the encyclopedic character of Socrates’ lexical interpretations and argues that these are ‘exegetically correct’ in representing the opinions of the name-givers of old who subscribed to a Heraclitean view of a world in flux, as is reflected in the original form of the names they devised. Ademollo stresses that Socrates’ etymologies display the evolution of Greek intellectual thought, shown to be heavily reliant on the assumption of a universe in flux, and serve to exhibit the weaknesses in Cratylus’ naturalist view of language.

This book focuses on the development of Platonic philosophy at the hands of Roman writers between the first century BCE and the early fifth century CE. It discusses the interpretation of Plato's Timaeus by Cicero, Apuleius, Calcidius, and Augustine, and examines how these authors created new contexts and settings for the intellectual heritage they received and thereby contributed to the construction of the complex and multifaceted genre of Roman Platonism. It takes advantage of the authors' treatment of Plato's Timaeus as a continuous point of reference to illustrate the individuality and originality of each writer in his engagement with this Greek philosophical text; each chooses a specific vocabulary, methodology, and literary setting for his appropriation of Timaean doctrine. The authors' contributions to the dialogue's history of transmission are shown to have enriched and prolonged the enduring significance of Plato's cosmology.

Cette étude examine le rôle de traduction comme médium dans la tradition des interprétations de Platon. L’examen porte sur une partie du Timée de Platon (29b2-d3), traduite par trois interprètes: un premier échantillon de traduction moderne permet tout d’abord de mettre en lumière certains reflets de la recherche platonicienne contemporaine. Deux spécimens plus détaillés de traductions latines, de Cicéron et de Calcidius, datée du IVe siècle, permettent ensuite d’approfondir l’exégèse ancienne du dialogue. L’article s’attache à démontrer que chacun de ces textes témoigne du platonisme contemporain de son traducteur, de sa mentalité philosophique et intellectuelle. Dans le cas de la version cicéronienne, on rencontre des éléments dialectiques de l’académie philonienne, entremêlés avec des nuances rhétoriques aristotéliciennes. La traduction calcidienne, en revanche, nous invite à réfléchir sur la vie philosophique du moyen platonisme. Loin d’être un instrument neutre et mécanique de dissémination textuelle, la traduction se présente comme une interprétation individuelle et une contribution originale à l’exégèse de l’objet qu’elle transmet

This paper examines Calcidius’ position in the notorious interpretative controversy over Plato’s dialogue Timaeus. Despite Calcidius’ far-reaching influence on the later philosophical and theological tradition, his contribution to the history of this debate has received surprisingly little attention. Against previous studies that have concluded unfavourably with regard to Calcidius’ merits as a commentator, this inquiry shows that his Platonic exegesis, far from being problematic and contradictory, is original in its approach and method. During the course of this paper, moreover, Calcidius’ affiliation with the Christian faith is reevaluated and found to be less extensive than has sometimes been assumed.