Eugene Afonasin

The article deals with currents and tides. We look at the history of their observation in antiquity as well as alternative theories, designed to explain their nature. Major theories accessed are those by Aristotle, Posidonius and Seneca. Special attention is given to ancient explanation of the phenomenon of the periodical change of the stream in Euripus’ channel. Throughout we refl ect on an analogy between natural phenomena and the processes occurring in living organisms, common to our philosophers of nature, as well as the peculiarities of their interpretation of the theory of mutual transformation of the elements. Besides, it is important to note the place of the method of analogy in their observations and theoretical constructions.

The political dimension of Plato’s cosmological thought has been extensively explored as such and in its relation with Greek culture, but there remains a question of methodology. Which context will be more appropriate for Plato’s works? Shall we focus on their metaphysical features, or, alternatively, place them in a dialectical context? Or, maybe, we have to plunge them in the depth of Greek cultural life and compare with technological advances of Greek civilization? This latter approach, having done properly, would be a real innovation, capable of, as it appears, presenting a fresh look at the familiar matters. This is exactly the task of a new project launched by Dominic O’Meara in the book under review. Plato’s cosmological and political ideas are successfully discussed here in their relation with ancient crafts, arts, and various peculiarities of social life of the Greek polis.

Our purpose on the present occasion is to evaluate some ideas the biographers of late antiquity held about the origins of European thought. Speaking about this period we are no longer dealing with the question of transferring of the archaic practices: these practices are indeed long dead. What we encounter can be better defined as the import of ideas. Equally important is a study of the changing attitudes of our authors: rather than passive witnesses, they became active participants of this import. The process is truly fascinating and we hope that the following examples, mostly from Hippolytus, will elucidate this. The best, almost a paradigmatic example is Pythagoras, who in late antiquity had many faces. His biography is an interesting instance of general change of attitude to ancient wisdom, typical for the source utilized by Hippolytus. Looking at a number of peculiar features of Hippolytus’ report which, we hope, will help us to see why the image of Pythagoras and his philosophy, formed by Hippolytus, is somewhat untypical for the period. We will see that Hippolytus’ biographic report, however garbled, shows no signs of so-called ‘Neopythagorean’ biographic development. Admittedly, the later authors frequently combine their sources to make them suitable to their needs, polemical or apologetic. Do we still have a reason to believe that these stories, however doubtful from the historical point of view, may contain the germs of truth?

Aristotle and his followers, such as Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus, present Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans and Empedocles as figures not entirely devoid of legendary features. At the same time the Peripatetic biographers do not fail to place them in proper historical setting as intellectuals, initiated important philosophical and religious movements. According to Dicaearchus, for instance, the sages are known for their highly practical maxims and general rules of right conduct; Pythagoras developed a new lifestyle and promulgated it in his public and private teaching; Socrates introduced a new form of intellectual and moral pursuit; while Plato founded an institutional framework for philosophical studies having thus paved the way to a systematic research, conducted by the Peripatetics, etc. In a striking contract with this, in the dialogues of their contemporary Heraclides of Pontus Pythagoras, Empedocles and other ancient philosophers are predominantly literary figures and super-heroes who’s supernatural powers are clearly beyond the reach of ordinary men. At the same time, the theories these fictitious personages profess are tailored according to a recognizably Platonic draft. In this work the present writer continues his studies of ancient biographic tradition initiated in a series of articles, published in two previous issues of the journal [Schole 10 271–282 and 11 570–607]

In general, Proclus had intimate relations with gods, but Asclepius seems to assist him all his life: the young Proclus miraculously recovered when the son of Asclepius, Telesphorus, appeared to him in a dream; in a more advanced age the patron of medicine saved him again, this time from arthritis; and it was Asclepius who appeared to him as a serpent “in his final illness”. The philosopher speaks about a vision of Asclepius in his Commentary to Alcibiades 166. Besides, he was probably involved in the process of establishing an Asclepian cult in his home country. It is against this background that one may look at the Neoplatonic attitude to medicine. Having discussed first the principal philosophical interpretations of Asclepius found in Apuleus, Aelianus, Macrobius, Julian, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus, Damascius, etc., we turn to Proclus’ attitude to Athena and Aslepius as reflected in Marinus’ Vita Procli and finally discuss the cult of Eshmun as found in Damascius. The textual data are supported by arhcaeological evidence from the “House of Proclus” in Athens.

The heir of Aristotle Theophrastus of Eresus wrote voluminously on a great variety of subjects, including music. Unfortunately, not much survived intact, and for recovering his highly original approach to music we have to rely on a series of testimonies in later authors, and a relatively long extract from his treatise On Music, quoted by Porphyry in his Commentary to Ptolemy’s Harmonics. He seems to be especially concerned with educational and therapeutic value of music and, most importantly, while criticising standard Pythagorean, Platonic and Peripatetic mathematical harmonics as well as contemporary acoustical theories, have proposed a new qualitative approach to music, based on a re-evaluation of common empirical considerations and a very problematic theory of the psychological nature of musical consciousness, and special power of music, manifested in the movement productive of melody which occurs in the human soul when it reveals itself in a melodic voice. The fragments of Theophrastus’ musical works, translated here into the Russian for the first time, are supplemented with other evidences, also quoted by Porphyry, such as the most important musical fragment of Archytas, extracts from the Peripatetic De audibilibus, as well as quotes from such otherwise unknown musical writers as Panaetius, Heraclidus, and Aelianus, all on the subject of Pythagorean harmonics and acoustic theory.

In this small treatise the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry addresses the question, problematic to every Platonic philosopher, this of agency of the preexistent human soul. Are the embryos already in possession of the self-moving descended souls and thus already living beings? In order to answer the question Porphyry first tries to show that embryos are not actually animals and thus can more properly be compared with plants. The second set of arguments is aimed to show that they are not animals even potentially. Finally Porphyry argues that, regardless the time of its entry, the self-moving soul comes from outside, not from the parents. The final chapter of the treatise is unfortunately not preserved, but the answer given by the philosopher is clear: a particular soul enters an appropriate body immediately after its birth and harmonically attuned to it for the rest of the bodily life. The translation is prepared on the basis of a new commented edition by T. Dorandi. An extensive commentary that accompanies the translation helps to situate the treatise in the context of ancient medical and philosophical literature.

The publication is dedicated to Diogenes of Apollonia, the "last Presocratic cosmologist". Building upon the great edition by André Laks it contains a Russian translation and commentaries on the few extant fragments of Diogenes’ writing and more extensive ancient testimonia about his life and teachings. The main body of the publication comprises the fragments, doxographical testimonia and doubtful testimonia. The texts are arranged according to the principles proposed by A. Laks and differ from what we find in Diels-Kranz both in terms of their order and their content, with a few new pieces of evidence added and the context of the fragments and testimonia considerably expanded. The first section contains Fragments 1-12. Doxographical testimonia are subdivided in 1. Biographical evidence ; 2. The principle ; 3. Life and consciousness ; 4. Semen and embryo ; 5. The Universe, and Dubia. Variant doxographical testimonia are usually quoted in full and discussed at some length in the commentary. The paper contains Appendices and Index locorum. The publication will be useful for specialists in ancient cosmology, medicine, and other areas of early philosophy and science, as well as researchers with an interest in doxography.

The political dimension of Plato’s cosmological thought has been extensively explored as such and in its relation with Greek culture, but there remains a question of methodology. Which context will be more appropriate for Plato’s works? Shall we focus on their metaphysical features, or, alternatively, place them in a dialectical context? Or, maybe, we have to plunge them in the depth of Greek cultural life and compare with technological advances of Greek civilization? This latter approach, having done properly, would be a real innovation, capable of, as it appears, presenting a fresh look at the familiar matters. This is exactly the task of a new project launched by Dominic O’Meara in the book under review. Plato’s cosmological and political ideas are successfully discussed here in their relation with ancient crafts, arts, and various peculiarities of social life of the Greek polis.

The Peripatetic treatise Peri pneumatos has recently received a great deal of scholarly attention. Some authors, predominantly A. Bos and R. Ferwerda, try to prove that the treatise is a genuine work of Aristotle and all the theories advanced in the text can be ultimately explained by references to this or that Aristotelian doctrine. Quite on the contrary, P. Gregoric, O. Lewis and M. Kuhar are firmly convinced that the treatise contains some physiological ideas introduced after Aristotle and are inclined to support the traditional dating of the treatise to the time after Praxagoras of Cos. Largely in agreement with the latter proposition, in the present study I tentatively place this earliest and unique witness of the discussions on the source of growth and nourishment of the so-called connate pneuma in the context of the Peripatetic tradition of the Early Hellenistic period. The treatise is translated into the Russian for the first time.

According to a later report, Aristotle thought that wise sayings are the “relics” of the past tekhne, preserved thanks to their conciseness and cleverness when ancient civilization perished in a world cataclysm. In this respect they are valuable clues for a retrospective reconstruction of the intellectual history of Greece, and Aristotle was the first to develop in his works a sense of historical consciousness, prerequisite for such a reconstruction, although some contemporary authors would contest this view. In the paper I translate and comment selected fragments of and testimonies about Aristotle’s lost works and observe how he used this historical observations in his philosophical treaties, having thus paved the way to a systematic historical research, conducted by the Peripatetics in a pre-established institutional framework.

Cicero, Clement of Alexandria as well as Proclus inform us that Theophrastus [372–287 BCE] inclined to identify the god and the sky. In the paper we will see that, indeed, the student of Aristotle frequently professes ideas that would surprise the philosopher of Stagira. For instance, he frequently insists that the kosmos is a living and ordered universe, and its innate movement is something which cannot be explained with the help of hand-made teleological constructions, such as the first mover. The analysis of the Metaphysics is supplemented in the paper by observations based on Theophrastus’ Meteorology and a selection of the fragments of his lost scientific works. The Metaphysics is translated into Russian for the first time.

A short polemical treatise of Galen, dedicated to the nature of medical knowledge, is now translated from the Greek into Russian for the first time. Galen outlines the position of two opposing camps in the Hellenistic medicine, the Rationalists and the Empiricists. The dispute culminates with the appearance of the third camp, the so-called Methodists, who claim to have found a position immune to criticism from the both sides. The majority of counterarguments of Galen are directed against this school. The translation is supplemented with an introduction, notes, and bibliography.

The Peripatetic Dicaearchus composed a series of works dedicated to the intellectual history of Greece. In a sense, he was the first ancient author to write a comprehensive history of philosophy, centered on such key figures, as the Seven Sages, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato. The sages are known for their highly practical maxims and general rules of right conduct; Pythagoras developed a new lifestyle and promulgated it in his public and private teaching; Socrates introduced a new form of intellectual and moral pursuit; while Plato founded an institutional framework for philosophical studies having thus paved the way to a systematic research, conducted by the Peripatetics. The evidences are translated on the basis of a new edition of Dicaearchus’ fragments, prepared by Mirhady.

Galen’s last work, De propriis placitis has a very complex textual history. Except to few extracts, the Greek original of the treatise is lost. The last two chapters of the treatise, entitled On the substance of natural faculties, circulated independently in a fourteenth century translation into Latin by Niccolò da Reggio. The main body of treatise is preserved in a medieval Latin translation made from an Arabic translation. There is also a quote in Hebrew. Fortunately, some time ago V. Nutton published an excellent commented edition of the treatise. It was proven indispensable for the present study, as well as a recent publication of a newly discovered Greek text by Boudon-Millot and Pietrobelli. The treatise, important for understanding of Galen’s various opinions, certainly deserves a close study. It is now translated into the Russian for the first time.

In this small treatise the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry addresses the question, problematic to every Platonic philosopher, this of agency of the preexistent human soul. Are the embryos already in possession of the self-moving descended souls and thus already living beings? In order to answer the question Porphyry first tries to show that embryos are not actually animals and thus can more properly be compared with plants. The second set of arguments is aimed to show that they are not animals even potentially. Finally Porphyry argues that, regardless the time of its entry, the self-moving soul comes from outside, not from the parents. The final chapter of the treatise is unfortunately not preserved, but the answer given by the philosopher is clear: a particular soul enters an appropriate body immediately after its birth and harmonically attuned to it for the rest of the bodily life. The article discusses new excellent commented editions of the treatise by T. Dorandi and his colleagues and by J. Wilberding and proposes suggestions for their improvement.

In the first and second parts of the article we look at two archaeological sites excavated in the center of Athens, a building, located on the Southern slope of the Acropolis and now buried under the Dionysiou Areopagitou Street, known as House Chi, or the “House of Proclus”, and Houses A, B and C at the slope of the Areopagus overlooking the Athenian Agora. We outline and illustrate the basic finds and reexamine the principal arguments in favor of identifying these constructions as the houses of philosophical schools and, in the third part of the paper, offer a remark on religious practice in the Neoplatonic school.

The article begins with a brief survey of the Early Greek cosmogonies of Pherecydes of Syros and of the Orphics. My major concerns are the figure of Chronos and the demiurgic activity of Zeus. Ancient cosmogony is compared with the contemporary theory of time by I. Prigogine, who, not unlike the Ancients and in contrast with the standard cosmological theory of the Big Bang, thinks that Time did not originate with our world and will not end with it. Then I examine the Platonic kybernētēs metaphor and the ideas, associated with it in the Ancient philosophy against the background of a broader literary tradition. The topic is finally illustrated by an unusual Celtic coin struck in Normandy, France, c. 100 BCE, showing a model ship as the victor’s prize in a chariot race. The image can be placed both in mythological and historical context. It is fascinating to observe how an unknown artist independently follows the steps of the Greek philosopher in his reinterpreting of a complicated mythological image in a political sense.

Built on two previous studies, dedicated, respectively, to Iamblichus of Chalcis’ Letters and his vision of the afterlife 166–193 and ΣΧΟΛΗ 4.2 239–245), the author now turns to the De anima of the Syrian Neoplatonist, preserved only fragmentary in John of Stobi’s Eclogae. Unfortunately, only a doxographic part of Iamblichus’ original treatise On the Soul was preserved by Stobaeus. The fragments were collected and for the first time studied by Festugière, are then comprehensively edited, translated and commented by J. Finamore and J.M. Dillon. The text is interesting for many respects. It supplies us with a considerable amount of information concerning ancient opinions about the nature of the soul, its powers, activities and faculties, considers the questions related with the number of the souls, their descent, encounter with the body, life and death, and, finally, such eschatological matters as purification, judgment, punishment and reward. Besides, the fragments allow us to perceive Iamblichus’ own concept of the soul as a mediator between the world and the higher reality, immersed in the context of his sharp criticism of his predecessors, such as Numenius, Plutarch, Atticus, Albinus, Plotinus, Amelius, and Porphyry. The fragments are translated into the Russian for the first time.

In the second century A.D. the Mediterranean world underwent a profound change in ethical attitude towards the сosmos and human society, and the change is especially well reflected in one of the most controversial intellectual movement of the Late Antiquity, the so-called Gnostic tradition. Although attempts to draw a coherent picture of Gnosis which have been undertaken so far have yielded no satisfactory result, the basic patterns of thought, commonly labeled as ‘Gnostic’, are reasonably well known. Taken in the broadest sense of the word, Gnosticism is a specific world attitude. In the framework of JudeoChristian world-view the Gnostics contemplated the world affairs from a global prospective, put them in the context of world history and developed a specific form of eschatology. In this paper 125–132) the author undertakes to interpret select historical evidence, which can throw the light upon the development of this quite diverse and controversial tradition, including a passage from the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, which, surprisingly enough, was not previously treated in this context.

The Letters by the Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus of Chalchis, preserved in a fragmentary form by John of Stobi in his Antologia are translated into Russian for the first time. The work is based on a new commented edition of the Letters by John Dillon and Wolfgang Polleichtner and a partial French translation in O’Meara D., Schamp J., eds. Miroirs de prince de l’Empire romain au IVe siècle. In his introduction and notes to the translation the author mainly focuses on various aspects of political philosophy, advocated by Iamblichus.