Plutarch of Athens

This article deals with the Neoplatonist Plutarch. For other bearers of the name Plutarch see Plutarch (disambiguation) .

Plutarch of Athens ( Greek  Πλούταρχος Plútarchos ; * around 350, † around 432) was a late antique philosopher of the Neoplatonic direction. He was the founder and first director ( Scholarch ) of the Neoplatonic School of Philosophy in Athens , which is often referred to as the "Academy" because it renewed the tradition of the Platonic Academy .

Life

Little is known about Plutarch's life. He came from a respected family in Athens. According to the understanding of the sources, which predominates in research, his father and his paternal grandfather bore the name Nestorios; the grandfather worked as a theurgist , that is, he dealt with religious practices that should make it possible to get in touch with divine beings. The origin of theurgic practices was traced back to the Chaldeans . Nestorios had extensive knowledge in this area, which he passed on to his grandson. Plutarch taught the theurgic teachings to his daughter Asklepigeneia; The famous Neo-Platonist Proclus later learned theurgy of Asklepigeneia .

Polymnia Athanassiadi takes a different interpretation of the sources . She says that Plutarch himself had his father's name Nestorios as a middle name and that the information about his supposed grandfather can be related to his father.

Where and from whom Plutarch received his philosophical training is not clear from the sources. Various hypotheses have been considered in research, none of which have prevailed.

According to an anecdote shared by the Neoplatonist Damascius , when Plutarch fell ill, he consulted Asclepius , the god of healing , while he was sleeping in the temple . Asklepios advised the philosopher to eat a lot of pork. However, Plutarch could not bring himself to use the recommended remedy, although no traditional dietary rule forbade him such food. Therefore, after waking up from sleep, he turned to the statue of the god and asked for an alternative proposal, arguing that there must be a solution for sick Jews too. Asklepios went into it at once; the statue spoke and said another cure. This story shows the theurge's relaxed, impartial dealings with the deity.

Plutarch founded a Neoplatonic school of philosophy in Athens, with which he continued the tradition of the Platonic Academy. However, the term “academy” for this school is incorrect; Classes did not take place on the premises of Plato's original academy , but in a private house of Plutarch, which after his death remained the seat of the school and the residence of its director. Some archaeologists identify this house with the "Chi building" on the southern slope of the Acropolis , which was partially excavated in 1955 and is called the "House of Proclus". Presumably a portion of Plutarch's sizable fortune went to the school.

The identification of the Neoplatonist Plutarch with a benefactor of the same name, attested to in writing, who contributed extremely generously to the financing of the Panathenaic three times , is controversial. It has also been suggested that two epigrams , only fragmentarily preserved in inscriptions , in which a Platonist is praised, are related to Plutarch, but this hypothesis has found little support.

Plutarch died of old age around 432. His successor as head of the school was his student Syrianos .

Works

Plutarch's works have been lost except for fragments. These are comments on Plato's dialogue Parmenides and on Aristotle 's De anima (“On the Soul”) , probably also on Plato's Gorgias , perhaps also on Phaedo . In the commentary on De anima he criticizes an earlier commentator, the peripatetic Alexander von Aphrodisias , whom he accuses of having falsified the authentic teaching of Aristotle.

Teaching

Plutarch is primarily concerned with the interpretation of the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. In accordance with the understanding of the history of philosophy prevalent in late ancient Neo-Platonism, he assumes a fundamental harmony between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy and interprets Aristotle in this sense. His attitude towards the various directions in Neoplatonism is unclear; Some researchers - especially Rudolf Beutler and Étienne Évrard - believe that Plutarch's relationship to the neo-Platonism, shaped by Iamblichos of Chalkis , was distant, others believe that it was based on the ideas of Iamblichos. Évrard suspects an influence of Porphyry .

In interpreting Plato's Parmenides , Plutarch assumes in the disputed question of the number of hypotheses presented there that there are nine lines of evidence (current research assumes eight). In the first five hypotheses he sees true statements (correct conclusions from correct assumptions), in hypotheses 6–9 absurd consequences from incorrect assertions. He believes that the examination of hypotheses 6–9 serves to test the opposing hypotheses 2–5 and confirms their correctness. The ontological hierarchical order corresponds a graded order of knowledge.

In the controversial question of the nature and activity of the human nous (intellect), Plutarch takes the view that it is a matter of a simple (not double) and not continuously active intellect. The PHANTASIA (imagination) has a central position between the nous and the Plutarch AISTHESIS (sensory perception) to. According to Plutarch's teaching, the phantasia is activated by a concrete sensory perception, but the representations are not only brought about by the activity of the sense organs, as was the case according to Aristotle's definition; rather, the mind that acts on the phantasia is involved in its creation . The imagination is also active in dreams; it is one of the causal soul abilities that bring about change. Plutarch attributes this ability to higher (adaptive) animals, but not to lower species such as worms and caterpillars. The phantasia cannot cause a movement on its own, but only with the participation of cognitive abilities.

reception

Plutarch's disciples included his successor Syrianus, his daughter Asklepigeneia, and the Neo-Platonist Hierocles of Alexandria . His most famous student was Proklos , whom he held in high esteem. However, Proclus did not arrive in Athens until around 431, when he was about nineteen, and was therefore only able to study for a short time with the elderly Plutarch, who died around two years later.

Plutarch's works received a lot of attention from the neo-Platonists of late antiquity. His commentary on Aristotle's De anima was used by Simplikios , Johannes Philoponos , Priskianos Lydos and Ammonios Hermeiou ; Ammonios turned against the doctrine of nous presented there.

During the Renaissance , the humanist Marsilio Ficino drew on the Neoplatonic tradition of late antiquity and praised Plutarch as an outstanding Platonist and Parmenides commentator. In doing so, however, he made a serious error: He did not recognize that the Neoplatonist Plutarch of Athens is a different person than the much more famous Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea . He therefore ascribed the Parmenides commentary to Plutarch of Chaironeia, to whom he consequently wrongly assigned a key role in the history of the interpretation of this dialogue.

Source collection

• Daniela Patrizia Taormina (ed.): Plutarco di Atene. L'Uno, l'Anima, le Forme . Università di Catania, Catania and L'Erma di Bretschneider, Rome 1989, ISBN 88-7062-696-2 (compilation of the source texts with Italian translation and commentary)

literature

• Rudolf Beutler: Plutarchus of Athens. In: Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Antiquity Science (RE). Volume XXI, 1, Stuttgart 1951, Col. 962-975.
• Étienne Évrard: Le maître de Plutarque d'Athènes et les origines du neoplatonisme athénien . In: L'Antiquité Classique 29, 1960, pp. 108-133 and 391-406
• Angela Longo: Plutarch of Athens. In: Lloyd P. Gerson (Ed.): The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-19484-6 , pp. 608-615, 1121 f.
• Concetta Luna , Alain-Philippe Segonds: Plutarque d'Athènes . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 2, CNRS Éditions, Paris 2012, ISBN 978-2-271-07399-0 , pp. 1076-1096
• Matthias Perkams : Plutarch of Athens. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/3). Schwabe, Basel 2018, ISBN 978-3-7965-3700-4 , pp. 1870–1874, 2126 f.

Remarks

1. ↑ On Nestorios and the office of hierophant ascribed to him, see Thomas M. Banchich: Nestorius ἱεροφαντεῖν τεταγμένος . In: Historia 47, 1998, pp. 360-374.
2. ^ Marinos of Neapolis, Vita Procli 28; see Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert Gerrit Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 1, Paris 1968, pp. XXVII – XXX; Étienne Évrard: Le maître de Plutarque d'Athènes et les origines du neoplatonisme athénien . In: L'Antiquité Classique 29, 1960, pp. 108-133 and 391-406, here: 120-133.
3. ↑ Polymnia Athanassiadi (ed.): Damascius, The Philosophical History , Athens 1999, p. 173 and note 149.
4. ↑ Damaskios, Philosophical History (Vita Isidori) 89, ed. Polymnia Athanassiadi: Damascius: The Philosophical History , Athens 1999, pp. 222-225.
5. ↑ Arja Karivieri: The, House of Proclus' on the Southern Slope of the Acropolis: A Contribution . In: Paavo Castrén (ed.): Post-Herulian Athens , Helsinki 1994, pp. 115-139. Philippe Hoffmann offers a research overview : Damascius . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 2, Paris 1994, pp. 541-593, here: 548-555.
6. ↑ On the financial situation see Henry J. Blumenthal : 529 and its Sequel: What happened to the Academy? In: Byzantion 48, 1978, pp. 369-385, here: 373-375.
7. ↑ Proponents of equation include a. Thomas M. Banchich: Nestorius ἱεροφαντεῖν τεταγμένος . In: Historia 47, 1998, pp. 360–374, here: p. 367 and note 15 and - carefully - Alison Frantz: The Athenian Agora , vol. 24: Late Antiquity: AD 267–700 , Princeton 1988, p. 63 f. Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (eds.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 1, Paris 1968, p. XXX note 2 and Erkki Sironen: Life and Administration of Late Roman Attica in the Light of Public Inscriptions . In: Paavo Castrén (ed.): Post-Herulian Athens , Helsinki 1994, pp. 15–62, here: 46–48 (with reproduction and English translation of the text of the inscription). See Daniela Patrizia Taormina (Ed.): Plutarco di Atene. L'Uno, l'Anima, le Forme , Catania / Rome 1989, pp. 251 f .; Henry J. Blumenthal: 529 and its Sequel: What happened to the Academy? In: Byzantion 48, 1978, pp. 369-385, here: 373-375.
8. ↑ Fragment IG II / III ² 12 767. Werner Peek represents the hypothesis : Two poems on the Neo-Platonist Plutarch . In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 13, 1974, pp. 201-204; Henry J. Blumenthal agrees: 529 and its Sequel: What happened to the Academy? In: Byzantion 48, 1978, pp. 369–385, here: 374 f., Skeptical Daniela Patrizia Taormina (ed.): Plutarco di Atene. L'Uno, l'Anima, le Forme , Catania / Rom 1989, p. 252, rejecting Alison Frantz: The Athenian Agora , Vol. 24: Late Antiquity: AD 267-700 , Princeton 1988, p. 64, note 48.
9. ↑ Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : Platonism in antiquity , vol. 3, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, p. 195, note 6.
10. ↑ See Daniela Patrizia Taormina (ed.): Plutarco di Atene. L'Uno, l'Anima, le Forme , Catania / Rom 1989, p. 137 f., 238–240 and Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Vol. 3, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, p. 193.
11. ↑ Dominic J. O'Meara, for example, takes the latter view: Pythagoras Revived , Oxford 1989, pp. 109–111; Daniela Patrizia Taormina (ed.) has a similar judgment: Plutarco di Atene. L'Uno, l'Anima, le Forme , Catania / Rome 1989, pp. 16-19, 26-28, 38 f., 54 f.
12. ↑ On the various orders of hypotheses among the Neo-Platonists see Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 1, Paris 1968, pp. LXXV – LXXXIX, especially on Plutarch's model, pp. LXXXIV – LXXXVI .
13. ^ Henry J. Blumenthal: Neoplatonic elements in the de Anima commentaries . In: Richard Sorabji (Ed.): Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence , 2nd, revised edition, London 2016, pp. 327–348, here: 334–339. On the problematic tradition of Plutarch's nous doctrine, Christian Tornau : Remarks on Stephanos of Alexandria, Plotinus and Plutarch of Athens . In: Elenchos 28, 2007, pp. 105–127, here: 114–127.
14. ↑ See also Rudolf Beutler: Plutarchos von Athen . In: Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswwissenschaft (RE), Vol. XXI, 1, Stuttgart 1951, Col. 962–975, here: 966 f .; Henry J. Blumenthal: Plutarch's Exposition of the De anima and the Psychology of Proclus . In: De Jamblique à Proclus , Genève 1975, pp. 123–151, here: 133 f.
15. ↑ Peter Lautner: Plutarch of Athens on κοινὴ αἴσϑησις and Phantasia . In: Ancient Philosophy 20, 2000, pp. 425–446, here: 438–445.
16. ^ Anna De Pace: Ficino e Plutarco: storia di un equivoco . In: Rivista di storia della filosofia 51, 1996, pp. 113-135.