Themistios

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Themistios ( Greek  Θεμίστιος ; * around 317; † after 388) was a late antique rhetor , philosopher and politician. Although he was not a Christian, he enjoyed the favor of the Christian Roman emperors , who entrusted him with important tasks. His speeches are valuable sources for the politics and intellectual history of his time. His philosophy, which was shaped by both Aristotelian and Platonism , shows a tendency, typical of the time, to harmonize schools. In his philosophical writings he reproduces the content of individual works by Aristotle , in which he prepares them didactically. These paraphrases had a strong impact - even in medieval Arabic and Latin translations.

The epoch in which Themistios lived was marked by violent religious conflicts: Christians and non-Christians as well as warring representatives of different Christian denominations fought each other with varying degrees of success. In addition, the Roman Empire was challenged by the beginning migration of the peoples . Themistios saw his task as a philosopher and speaker in dealing with these problems and asserting his position in the discourse of decision-makers. In doing so he used to act in agreement with the respective ruling emperor. Both domestically and internationally, he advocated a policy of balancing interests. His concept of religious tolerance has received a lot of attention to the present day. Regarding the way in which the foreign peoples were approaching, he was of the opinion that it was possible and desirable to romanise and integrate them. He considered such a policy to be more promising than the restriction to military defense.

Life

Origin, childhood and youth

Themistius was probably born around 317 on his father's estate in Paphlagonia , not - as some researchers have suspected - in Byzantion , later Constantinople . He came from a wealthy Paphlagonian family of philosophers and had several brothers. Even his grandfather, not known by name, had emerged as a philosopher and was valued and favored by Emperor Diocletian , at whose court he was staying. The father, Eugenios, was a Neoplatonist . Eugenios worked as a philosophy teacher after his studies, which he had probably completed with the famous Neo-Platonist Iamblichus of Chalkis . He interpreted the writings of Aristotle and tried to make dark passages understandable to his students, because he considered Aristotelianism an excellent introduction to Platonism. In addition, he also treated works by important Greek poets, mainly the epics of Homer , to which he attributed valuable philosophical content.

Eugenios made sure that Themistios received extensive philosophical, grammatical and rhetorical training. He himself gave him philosophy lessons and apparently employed Flavius ​​Antonius Hierocles as a grammar teacher. It is not clear from the sources whether Themistios spent his youth mainly in Constantinople or in the Paphlagonian homeland of his family. He received his training in his native Greek language; he has never acquired the ability to express himself in Latin at a comparable level. For rhetorical training, Eugenios sent his son to a rhetorician in a small town on the Black Sea near the Phasis River (now Rioni ).

Early teaching and starting a family

Themistios appropriated his father's concept of education; in the forties he began to give philosophy lessons in Constantinople himself. Around 340 he married his first wife, the daughter of a philosopher. He had children with her, including a son who was also named Themistios. This son later attended the lessons of the famous speaker Libanios in Antioch , but died in 357.

Even as a young man, Themistios acquired an excellent professional reputation and began to write his paraphrases from the writings of Aristotle. His fame as a teacher and Aristotle commentator earned him numerous students who came to the capital to hear him. He made friends with Libanios, who was then living in Constantinople; however, the relationship between the two speakers was later clouded by differences of opinion and rivalry.

Political career under Emperor Constantius II.

Bust of Constantius II, University of Pennsylvania Archaeological Museum

Themistios was promoted by the officer Flavius ​​Saturninus , whose virtues and diplomatic skills he later recognized in his 16th state speech. It was probably Saturninus who introduced him to the imperial court. Themistius came into the political limelight with the first of his state speeches, which he gave in 350 or 351 in Constantinople or in Ancyra to glorify the philanthropy of Emperor Constantius II . Soon he gained an influential position. But there was no lack of envious people and opponents; their hostility may have been one of the motives that prompted him to seriously consider moving to Antioch, from where he had received an attractive offer. Presumably to prevent his departure from Constantinople, Constantius II appointed him to the senate of the capital in 355. The honoree thanked for this in November 355 with his second state speech.

In the spring of 357 Themistius went to Rome as envoy of the Senate of Constantinople to praise Constantius II, who celebrated a military success there and perhaps also his twentieth anniversary of rule, in a speech and to present him with a golden wreath. His appearance in Rome made such a deep impression that they tried in vain to persuade him to stay permanently. An important side effect was that Themistios was able to use this opportunity to persuade the emperor to reverse the previously decreed halving of the annona intended for Constantinople (food delivery for distribution to the population). This success increased his reputation in the capital considerably.

Constantius saw in Themistios an outstanding personality. He commissioned him to increase the number of senators in order to raise the personal profile of the city that Constantius' father Constantine the Great had founded and made the new capital of the empire. Themistius was also suitable for this task because the splendor of Constantinople was close to his heart. He considered the urban development and cultural promotion of the capital to be one of the emperor's most important tasks; as a speaker he paid tribute to Constantius' achievements in this area. According to his own statements, which are probably exaggerated in terms of his role, Themistios ensured that the number of Senate members rose from less than 300 to 2000. Even if this claim should not be true, it can be assumed that numerous senators owed him personally for their office in the period that followed. Under the circumstances, it was natural that he should become the most respected Senate member; He himself described his informal special position in the Senate as prostasía (priority, leadership). He made services to cultural life by encouraging scholars to move to Constantinople.

It has been assumed on various occasions that his outstanding role was already evident during this period in that he was formally assigned a high office. According to one hypothesis put forward by some researchers, he was the last proconsul of Constantinople before Constantius abolished the office of proconsul in 359 and replaced it with that of city prefect ( praefectus urbi ), thus making it clear that Constantinople and Rome were on an equal footing. The opposite research opinion is that Constantius first offered the office of proconsul to Themistius and then, when he refused it, otherwise disposed of it. In any case, Constantius was very satisfied with the work of Themistius, which he showed, among other things, by asking the philosopher to come to his table in the fall of 359.

However, in spite of his influential position in Constantinople and despite the favor of the emperor in the 1950s, Themistius was also exposed to severe criticism. The conflict with his critics was carried out in public, and he also used to appear as a speaker in front of large crowds. Speeches 23, 26 and 29, in which he defended himself against allegations concerning his personal integrity, testify to the severity of the argument. His opponents claimed that he sought the applause of the crowd, displayed an obsession for glory that was unworthy of a philosopher, and lured students with material favors. Hence, in truth, he is not a philosopher, but merely a sophist . The term "sophist", which had fallen into disrepute due to Plato's criticism of sophistry, was also used in a neutral way during the Roman Empire , but in Themistius as in his opponents it was meant derogatory. For him this was associated with the idea of ​​a pursuit of profit connected with philosophical instruction, which he considered unworthy. His financial independence enabled him to forego tuition fees, which he was proud of. He even supported poor students in his turn.

In the meantime, his first wife apparently died, because he married again in 359. His second wife was from Phrygia .

Activity under the emperors Julian and Jovian

Coin portrait of Jovian

The interpretation of the source statements on the relationship between Themistius and Constantius' successor Julian is controversial in research. What is certain is that Themistios sent Julian a letter in which he explained his view of the duties of a philosophically minded ruler. The letter is lost, but Julian's reply has been received. It is disputed whether Julian wrote his reply letter as early as 356 when he was still in Gaul as Caesar , or only after he came to power (end of 361), in this case perhaps as a reaction to a letter of congratulations from Themistius on the occasion of the accession to power. Although both were adherents of the ancient religion and respected one another, philosophical differences of opinion separated them. Themistios did not play a prominent role at Julian's court. Presumably in 363 he wrote a panegyric on the emperor, but he may not have been given the opportunity to deliver the eulogy because Julian died on his campaign against the Persians .

Research has suggested that Themistios' relationship with Julian's successor Jovian was initially distant. The reason for this assumption was the news communicated by Libanios that the Senate had asked Themistius to go to Antioch with an embassy that was supposed to congratulate the new emperor on his assumption of government, but he had refused this request. In fact, he was not a member of the legation, but the credibility of the portrayal of Lebanios is considered dubious. At the beginning of 364, at the emperor's request, Themistios gave a speech on the occasion of the entry into the consulate of Jovian and his son Varronian, who was not yet a year old . In it he praised religious tolerance, which he used to promote a central point of Jovian's government program. He indirectly criticized his marginalization under Julian by thanking Jovian for having brought "philosophy" back to court. Apparently he found the new ruler's esteem and put himself fully in his service.

The heyday of Valens and Theodosius I.

Coin portrait of Emperor Valens

In 364 Themistios gave a speech about the meaning of the rule of division between Jovian successors, the brothers Konstantin Opel Valens and Valentinian I . Under Valens, who ruled in the east of the empire, his political influence increased further. Themistios mentions that the emperor used to heed his advice. He offered himself as an educator for Valens' young son Valentinianus Galates , where he drew a comparison with Alexander the great and his teacher Aristotle. The early death of the emperor's son thwarted this hope. In 366 or 367, Themistius praised the gentleness of the victorious Emperor Valens in a speech he gave to the Senate a few months after the rebellion of the opposing Emperor Procopius was put down , although in reality Valens had acted with great severity against oppositionists and suspects after his victory. With this, the speaker signaled to his audience on behalf of the emperor that the persecution measures were now over.

Themistios held the ceremonial address for the five and ten year jubilees of the Valens' reign. However, Valens could not follow his explanations, because the emperor did not have sufficient knowledge of Greek even after many years in the east of the empire. In 376 Valens sent him to the Emperor Gratian in Gaul, apparently on a diplomatic mission, presumably in preparation for a meeting of the two emperors requested by Valens.

The fact that Themistios clung to the old religion does not seem to have harmed him. He was even allowed to admonish the Christian emperor to be more religiously tolerant in a (not preserved) speech in Antioch. It was about a conflict between Christians; Themistius asked Valens, who was an Arian , to be more tolerant of the followers of the Nicea Creed . He probably acted in agreement with Valens, to whom he provided arguments for a planned change of course. In the eighth speech he advocated a gentler approach to tax collection and praised the progress already made in this regard.

Theodosius I coin

Themistius also built up a very good relationship with Emperor Theodosius I. His task was still to glorify the ruler in speeches and at the same time to make his course plausible to the ruling class of the empire. In 383, in his 16th speech, he praised the treaty that Theodosius had concluded with the Danube Goths as the fruit of a clever, far-sighted policy. Apparently, skeptics among the senators were to be convinced that this treaty, which legitimized the settlement of the Goths in the imperial territory, was in fact equivalent to a Roman victory. Themistios considered it an extraordinary success that he was appointed tutor of the emperor's son Arcadius . The imperial benevolence was also shown in the fact that Theodosius appointed him city prefect of Constantinople in 383 or 384. This promotion to one of the highest state offices brought him hostility, as it did under Constantius II. The opponents criticized that he sacrificed his independence as a philosopher to his will to power. The poet Palladas mocked him in an epigram ; however, in more recent research, arguments have been put forward that this often assumed ascription is incorrect and that Palladas lived in the early 4th century. In any case, the fact that Themistios resigned after a few months gave rise to doubts about the seriousness of his commitment. It was also alleged that he failed to perform in office. He defended himself against this in the 31st and 34th speeches. Already the 17th speech in which he thanked the emperor for the appointment is held in a defensive tone and shows his need to justify himself. In his defense against criticism, Themistius referred to his earlier services; He did not respond to specific allegations regarding his office as city prefect.

A letter from Libanius shows that Themistius was still alive in 388. Since he does not appear again in the later correspondence of Lebanios, it is assumed that he died soon afterwards. The weight of this argument is, however, limited by the fact that at that time there was no close friendship between the two rhetors.

Works

Themistios saw his task in presenting philosophical teachings in a linguistically beautiful form. He pursued this concern both in his philosophical journals and in his speeches. He wanted to combine philosophy and rhetoric, the relationship of which was traditionally problematized in Platonism; According to his self-image he was a philosopher and orator, but he expressly rejected the designation as a sophist.

Aristotle paraphrases

The paraphrases (reproductions of the content) of Aristotle's writings are not intended as comments in the usual sense, but Themistius only presents the material in a didactically prepared form in order to make it easier to understand. For this purpose he summarizes the thoughts of Aristotle and tries to clarify difficult passages. On the one hand, he streamlines Aristotle's explanations, on the other hand, he extends them considerably and adds excursions on individual questions. He also deals with the problem of content-related differences in the handwritten text transmission. He does not shy away from criticism of Aristotle. The term paraphrases , which Themistius himself did not use, was already in use in antiquity.

The paraphrases are only partly preserved, partly only in Hebrew translation. In the original Greek, the paraphrases of the Analytica posteriora , the physics and the writing De anima are preserved . The paraphrase of the Analytica posteriora is preceded by an introduction with basic explanations of the paraphrastic method. The paraphrase of De caelo is only available in Hebrew translation . From the paraphrase of the twelfth book of metaphysics , in addition to a Hebrew translation, fragments of an Arabic and Greek excerpt have been preserved in Aristotle's scholias . Only Hebrew extracts have survived from the paraphrase of the Analytica priora . Paraphrases of the categories and the topic are lost . In medieval Arabic literature there are references to further Aristotle paraphrases by Themistius; the credibility of this information is doubtful, as there is no other evidence. The Greek texts of paraphrases of the Parva naturalia and the Analytica priora which have been handed down under Themistios' name are spurious; they did not emerge until the late Middle Ages.

Talk

Thirty-three of Themistios' speeches, which he gave partly to emperors and high dignitaries and partly in private circles, have survived in the original Greek. The Byzantine scholar Photios (9th century) reports that he was aware of 36 "political speeches". Speeches 1–11 and 13–19 are called “state speeches”; the speech, which is traditionally numbered twelfth, is a forgery from the 16th century. Other state speeches attested to in the sources have been lost. Speeches 20–34 form the group of “private” speeches; Although they are also intended for the public and partly deal with political matters, they are of a less official character than the state speeches. These include, among other things, the funeral oration given to Themistios' father and some speeches that serve to defend against personal criticism. The “private speeches” 23 and 33 and perhaps also 28 are incomplete.

In the state speeches, Themistios praises the respective ruler and at the same time presents and explains his current measures and intentions. Therefore, the speeches largely reflect government policy. In some cases he appears as spokesman for the senators and representative of Constantinople. He also brings his personal concerns to the fore. There are clear signs of opportunism; the rulers who were glorified during their reigns are criticized in speeches given after their death.

The state speeches are as follows:

  • Speech 1 “On Philanthropy or Constantius” (350 or 351), given in Constantinople or Ancyra before Constantius II. The occasion may be an amnesty for supporters of the counter-emperor Magnentius , which gives the speaker an opportunity to praise the emperor's philosophical attitude. In any case, Themistios introduces himself to Constantius and promotes his political philosophy.
  • Speech 2 “That the emperor is most likely to be a philosopher, or speech of thanks” (November 355), given in Constantinople in front of the Senate, then sent to the court of Constantius II in Milan. Themistios thanks for his appointment as senator, which Constantius informed the senate in a letter that was flattering for the speaker.
  • Speech 3 (April / May 357), given in Rome to Constantius II on behalf of the Senate of Constantinople. Themistios brings the ruler a gift on the occasion of a celebration.
  • Speech 4 (probably 357 or 358), given in Constantinople in front of the Senate on the occasion of a celebration for Constantius II.
  • Speech 5 (January 1, 364), given in Ancyra before Emperor Jovian on the occasion of the entry into consulate of the emperor and his son Varronianus; soon afterwards the speech was repeated in Constantinople.
  • Speech 6 “The Sibling Lovers or About Philanthropy” (364), given in Constantinople to the Senate and Emperor Valens. The occasion is the division of power between Valentinian I and Valens, the expediency of which the senators should be convinced.
  • Speech 7 “About those who fell into misery under Valens” (366 or 367), presumably given in Constantinople before the Senate and Emperor Valens. The occasion is the end of the emperor's measures against supporters of the defeated counter-emperor Procopius.
  • Speech 8 (368 or 369, probably 368), given in Marcianopolis before Emperor Valens on the occasion of the celebration of the five-year jubilee of the reign. Themistios gives the audience to understand that Valens wants to end the costly war against the Goths soon.
  • Speech 9 (January 1, 369), probably given in Marcianopolis in the winter camp of Emperor Valens. According to a different, inadequately founded research opinion, the speech was not given, but only sent to the emperor. The occasion is the entry into the consulate of the imperial son Valentinianus Galates, who is not yet three years old.
  • Speech 10 “On Peace” (369 or 370), given to Emperor Valens, probably in the Senate of Constantinople, on the occasion of the peace agreement with the Goths.
  • Speech 11 “On the tenth anniversary of the reign or On the speeches that are befitting to the emperor” (373 or 374), given before Emperor Valens, probably in Antioch, on the occasion of the ten year anniversary of the reign of the ruler.
  • Speech 13 “About love or about royal beauty” (376), given before Emperor Gratian, to whose court Themistios went on a diplomatic mission.
  • Speech 14 (spring / summer 379), given to Emperor Theodosius I, probably in Thessalonike , on behalf of the Senate of Constantinople, who had the new emperor assured of his loyalty.
  • Speech 15 “Which is the most royal of the virtues?” (January 381), given in Constantinople before Emperor Theodosius I and the Senate. Themistios is of the opinion that a domestic policy characterized by justice and humanity is more important than military success in defending against external enemies, because a well-administered state ruled by a virtuous ruler is necessarily also militarily superior.
  • Speech 16 (January 1, 383), given in Constantinople to Emperor Theodosius I and the Senate. The occasion is the conclusion of peace with the Goths and the entry into consulate of Themistios' friend and patron Saturninus, who took part as a commander in the Gothic War and was instrumental in ending it. Themistios tries to convince skeptics that peace is necessary, meaningful and a Roman success.
  • Speech 17 “On the appointment as city prefect” (383 or 384), given in Constantinople before the Senate. Themistios thanks for the appointment, praises the emperor and justifies his - apparently controversial - decision to take office.
  • Speech 18 “About the Emperor's Readiness to Listen” (probably beginning of 384, at the latest beginning of 385), given in Constantinople before Emperor Theodosius I and the Senate.
  • Speech 19 “On the Philanthropy of Emperor Theodosius” (probably 383 or 384, at the latest 387), given in Constantinople to Emperor Theodosius I and the Senate. The occasion is the pardon of people who had been convicted of high treason; Themistios takes the opportunity to praise the ruler's humane disposition.

Other works

In the 9th century, Photios reports on Plato's commentaries by Themistius, about which nothing else is known. It seems to be a misunderstanding. A communication from Photios, according to which Themistius wrote not only the paraphrases but also Aristotle commentaries in the traditional sense, is probably based on an error.

Only in 1985 was a fragment "To the Kaiser" discovered; the text, which deals with the ruler's relationship to God, is addressed to an unnamed emperor - probably Theodosius I.

Themistios wrote a work "On Virtue" ( Peri aretḗs , only preserved in a Syrian version from the 6th century) and one "On the Soul" ( Peri psychḗs , lost except for fragments in Johannes Stobaios , whose authenticity is disputed) . Perhaps it was not originally a treatise but a speech. His letters have not survived, particularly those addressed to Libanios. A treatise on syllogistics has survived only in an Arabic translation .

Also only in an Arabic translation, which is based on a Syrian translation from the Greek, is a work "On the Government of the State" preserved, the author of which Themistius is named. It was probably intended for Theodosius I. The work known in research under its Arabic name risālat was perhaps originally a treatise in letter form. An epitome ascribed to Themistius from the zoological works of Aristotle, which has only survived in Arabic, is certainly spurious.

Teaching

In his philosophy, Themistios combines Aristotelian and Platonic elements in a typical way of the time ; he is convinced that these two directions are in harmony. Specifically Neoplatonic influence makes itself felt in various ways, but does not dominate. To what extent Themistius should be regarded as a Neo-Platonist and how the Platonic and Aristotelian influences should be weighted in his thinking is controversial in research. Some historians of philosophy do not regard him as a Neo-Platonist, but primarily as an Aristotelian; others argue for a stronger emphasis on the Neoplatonic aspects of his thinking. John Vanderspoel brings it close to late Middle Platonism .

Political Philosophy and Ethics

A central concern of Themistios is the implementation of philosophical teachings in practice through participation in political life. For him, the action of the statesman has priority over a purely contemplative philosophical life. This is where his attitude differs from that of Emperor Julian and the Neo-Platonists of late antiquity, who assign striving for knowledge more important than political activity. He sees the main task of the philosopher in advising the ruler and influencing politics in line with his principles. In Themistios' view, the conditions for this are more favorable under contemporary conditions than in the time of Socrates . His assessment of the political influence of a thinker who is also a speaker is evidence of a markedly optimistic attitude. Religious tensions cannot shake this optimism, even though he professes a hostile religion, whose followers are increasingly being ousted from positions of power. He identifies himself so strongly with his role as a representative of philosophy in the world of politics that he often uses the term “philosophy” as a self-designation.

For Themistios the ruler (king or emperor) is a representative of the deity. His task is - with which Themistios takes up a famous demand of Plato - the assimilation to God as far as this is possible. His government thus becomes the image of the cosmic rule of God. He approaches this goal through his virtues, among which Themistios emphasizes philanthropy as an outstanding ruling virtue . Themistios uses the term “God” ( theós ) to denote the divine authority, expressing himself in such a way that Christians as well as followers of the Greek religion can place his statements in the context of their respective religious reference systems.

Philanthropy combines all of the ruler's virtues into one. Other writers of late antiquity also appreciate philanthropy, but Themistios is the only one who places it at the center of his political philosophy . He understands by it a philanthropy, which is particularly evident in the mildness towards criminals and defeated enemies. It is not limited to members of one's own people, but extends to all of humanity. The ruler should consequently follow the example of the deity, who is equally responsible for all people. Themistios refers to Homer , who called Zeus the father of gods and men. In this sense, the emperor should consider himself the “father” not only of the Romans, but also of the Scythians . With the term "Scythians", Themistios means here the hostile peoples, barbaric from the Roman point of view. By demanding that they be included in the philanthropic imperial welfare, he at the same time indirectly acknowledges the Roman claim to world domination. He trusts in the assimilation power of Roman civilization, which is able to tame uncivilized peoples and turn barbarians into Romans. This has been successful in the past and will therefore also succeed with the Goths, who are now accepted as federates . Philanthropy does not regard Themistius as an innate disposition, but as an attitude that the ruler has to acquire through philosophical education. To learn this attitude, it is particularly important to orientate yourself towards suitable historical models.

A special feature of his thinking is his advocacy of religious tolerance. This attitude stems from his belief that some religious issues are beyond the purview of state law. He argues that there is no point in trying to force a religious belief through government orders; that only breeds opportunism. There are different ways that lead to God, and God himself grants every person the freedom to choose his own religious path; the state has to respect this. God wants religious diversity and rejoices in this diversity. It is the competition among each other that motivates people to make efforts; those who cannot measure themselves against an opponent fall into indolence. Therefore, competition among religions is also desirable. The disposition to piety is a common characteristic of all human beings, but the type of worship results from the particular disposition of individual peoples and individuals, which is so willed by God. In this sense he pleads not only for a peaceful coexistence of pagan and Christian citizens, but also for peace within the Christian part of the population between Arians and supporters of the Council of Nicaea .

Evil or evil plays a relatively minor role in Themistius' thinking and worldview. He regards the cosmos as generally well established and directed by a caring deity. He sees the bad in the world as a mere lack. He attributes it on the one hand to the inadequacy of the matter, on the other hand to human weakness, which becomes noticeable when there is a lack of good education. On the other hand, an education aimed at insight and virtue helps. He does not consider matter bad in itself, but thinks that it strives for the divine, but is hindered by its inadequacy.

Intellect and epistemology

In his presentation of Aristotle's epistemological theory from De anima 3, 4–8, Themistius emphasizes that in Aristotelian philosophy , although “ active reason ” has a divine quality, it cannot be identified with the Aristotelian God , as Alexander von Aphrodisias assumed . He thinks that the active reason is rather located in a certain transcendent , noetic area, which is subordinate to God and above the sphere of the individual existence of human beings. Active reason manifests itself in the human soul thanks to its connection with the “possible reason” subordinate to it, to which it relates like form to matter . Both active and possible reason could be severed from the human body; The immortal soul consists only of them. In addition, there is a third, passive reason ( pathētikós nous ), which is inextricably linked with the body and is therefore transitory. It is responsible for the memory, the emotions and the discursive thinking. After death, from an Aristotelian point of view, there is no memory of the connection between active and possible reason and passive reason, which perished with the body. This interpretation of the Aristotelian intellectual doctrine does not faithfully reproduce the position of Aristotle, but presents it in a form somewhat modified under the influence of the Neoplatonic way of thinking.

Themistius shares the negative attitude of Aristotle towards Plato's theory of ideas by rejecting the independent existence of ideas outside of the sense objects. On the other hand, he approves of the assumption that was widespread in his time that the immaterial forms can be localized in the divine intellect. Like Aristotle, he believes that the divine intellect does not grasp anything outside of it. In contrast to Aristotle, however, he assumes that the divine intellect also grasps the intelligible objects, because these are within him. This recording does not concern the individual things in their separation, but should be understood as a whole.

logic

Traditionally, only the modes of the first final figure of the Aristotelian syllogistic were considered perfect and the modes of the other figures were traced back to them. The Neo-Platonist Maximos of Ephesus , a contemporary of Themistius, on the other hand, took the view that all syllogisms are perfect and have their own validity. Since the modes of the first figure, regarded by Aristotle as the only perfect figure, are not the reason for validity for the other modes, their conventional reduction to a mode of the first figure is superfluous. Themistios contradicted this in a text that has only survived in Arabic translation and is cited in research literature under the French title Traité ( treatise ). Themistios was a supporter of the theory of figuration advocated by Alexander von Aphrodisias. It says that the second and third figures were created by converting a premise from the first figure. The properties of the modes of the first figure were transferred to the modes of the other figures; the first figure "created" the other two figures. For the proof of validity, proceed in the opposite direction to the process of figure creation. Themistios did not advocate this theory in its original version, according to which all derived modes are obtained by converting a premise of the basic modes, but in a modified variant, according to which only the figures, but not their individual modes, were created through premise conversion.

reception

Late antiquity

According to the judgment of contemporary Libanios, Themistius was not only an excellent speaker, but also “the best of the philosophers”. Libanios compared him to Demosthenes and called him a second Plato. As a speaker, Emperor Julian was inspired by his speeches. The ten embassies that the Senate entrusted him with and two statues that were erected for him on the imperial orders bear witness to his fame.

Themistios was also held in high regard by Christians. Letters addressed to him from the church father Gregor von Nazianz , who describes himself as his friend, testify to his reputation in Christian circles . Gregory calls him the "great Themistios", "King of Words" and an able philosopher. In the 5th century, church historians Sozomenos and Socrates expressed their appreciation for the moderating influence of the pagan speaker at the imperial court.

The policy of compromise with hostile foreign peoples, advocated by Themistius, met with opposition; a derogatory remark by the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus about "learned flatterers" who would have persuaded Emperor Valens to make supposedly far-sighted, in reality fatal concessions to the Goths, should refer to Themistius.

The after-effects of the Aristotle paraphrases, especially the paraphrase of De anima , were strong . Vettius Agorius Praetextatus , a contemporary of Themistius, wrote - as Boethius reports - his Latin version of the First and Second Analytics not from the original text of Aristotle, but from Themistius' paraphrases; but this translation was not saved in the Middle Ages. The late antique Aristotle commentators Simplikios , Boethius and Johannes Philoponos were among the users of paraphrases of Themistius. The author of the very popular De decem categoriis (Pseudo-Augustine) , incorrectly attributed to Augustine , relied on the categories -paraphrase.

middle Ages

In the Byzantine Empire in the 9th century, Photios found words of praise for the style of Themistius. The reception of Themistios in the Islamic world is more clearly recognizable than in medieval Byzantine literature. The paraphrases of the Analytica priora and Analytica posteriora , of physics , of the twelfth book of metaphysics , of the categories , of the topic as well as of De anima and De caelo have been translated into Arabic. In the 11th century Avicenna agreed with Themistius about the understanding of intelligible objects by the divine intellect. In the 12th century, the influential Aristotle commentator Averroes quoted Arabic paraphrase translations. In his great commentary on De anima he made extensive use of the paraphrase of this work. He saw Themistius as an early representative of his own intellectual doctrine, but criticized his view of the divine intellect insofar as it deviates from that of Aristotle. The Themistios quotes in Averroes' Commentaries on Aristotle, translated into Latin, were a major source of knowledge of the views of the late ancient philosopher in the Latin-speaking scholarly world of the Middle Ages.

On the basis of Arabic translations, two paraphrases were translated into Hebrew in the 13th century: Moses ibn Tibbon translated the paraphrase of the twelfth book of metaphysics in 1255 , Zerahjah ben Isaak in 1284 the paraphrase of De caelo . In the 14th century Todros Todrosi translated excerpts from the paraphrase of the Analytica priora into Hebrew and inserted them into his philosophical anthology .

In the 12th century, Gerhard von Cremona translated the paraphrase of the Analytica posteriora from Arabic into Latin. Robert Grosseteste and Albert the Great were among the users of his translation . The paraphrase to De anima was translated from Greek into Latin by Wilhelm von Moerbeke in 1267 . Moerbeke made his translation available to Thomas Aquinas , who quoted it extensively in his pamphlet "On the Unity of Intellect against the Averroists " and in his commentary on De anima . Thomas used his knowledge of the paraphrase to substantiate his thesis that Averroes misinterpreted the Aristotelian concept of the intellect; he claimed that Averroes misunderstood Themistios. Numerous late medieval scholastics referred to Themistios' interpretation of the Aristotelian theory of the soul. Heinrich Bate , Jakob von Viterbo and Siger von Brabant belong to them . Siger discovered in the paraphrase of De anima a helpful approach to the thinking of Aristotle.

Modern times

Title page of the Aristotle Paraphrases in the Latin translation by Ermolao Barbaro, print by Girolamo Scoto (Hieronymus Scotus), Venice 1542

As early as the 15th century, copies of Paraphrases by Themistius were circulating in humanist circles, but there were still no printed copies. In the late 15th century, the famous humanist Ermolao Barbaro made a Latin translation of the paraphrases, which was first printed in Treviso in 1481 . She was very successful; numerous other editions followed in the 16th century. In 1534 the first Greek edition of the works of Themistius appeared in Venice; Vettore (Victor) Trincavelli brought her out as Aldine . It contains the original Greek Aristotle paraphrases and eight speeches. Trincavelli's edition of the paraphrases was not replaced by a new edition until 1866. The two paraphrases, which have only survived in Hebrew, were also available in Latin translations in the 16th century: Mosè Finzi (Finzius) translated the paraphrase of the twelfth book of metaphysics (printed in Venice 1558), Mosè Alatino the paraphrase of De caelo (printed in Venice 1574) .

A Latin translation of the eight speeches edited by Trincavelli, made by Girolamo Donzellini (Hieronymus Donzellinus), was published in Basel in 1559. These eight and six other speeches were edited by Henri Estienne (Henricus Stephanus) in the original Greek in Paris in 1562. In 1684 Jean Hardouin published a complete edition of the speeches in Paris with a Latin translation; however, the 34th speech and the preliminary remark ( theoria ) to the 20th speech, which were only discovered in the 19th century, were missing .

The paraphrases of Themistius played an important role in the development of Aristotelianism in the Italian Renaissance . In the debates about the individual immortality of the soul and the unity of the intellect, his doctrine of soul and intellect was discussed. Thinkers who have grappled with this include Nicoletto Vernia , Agostino Nifo , Pier Nicola Castellani , Pietro Pomponazzi, and Cristoforo Marcello . Galileo studied the physics paraphrase, which he read in Barbaro's Latin translation.

The judgments about Themistius were different in the early modern period . Isaac Casaubon was delighted with the speeches; he wrote in a letter in 1609 that they were very beautiful and very elegant. Leibniz quoted Themistius without naming him; he made the philanthropic idea of ​​the ancient speaker his own, the concept of a generally philanthropic attitude that not only benefits members of his own people. On the other hand, the philologist Johann Jakob Reiske passed a damning verdict in the 18th century . He described Themistios as a flatterer and vain babbler, who had said largely the same in all the speeches.

Even in modern times, some scholars have assessed Themistios as an opportunistic eulogist without a philosophical format. Other researchers seek a more balanced judgment; John Vanderspoel points to the late antique understanding of the function of panegyric and a didactic intention of the speaker. Peter Heather and David Moncur state his agility and adaptability, which shows a “shameless” opportunistic trait, but also see him as an exceptionally skilled consensus builder and “ spin doctor ” and agree that his ideal of tolerance corresponded to a real personal conviction.

After Angelo Mai had discovered the 34th speech and edited it in 1816, Giacomo Leopardi published an essay in 1821 in which he critically interpreted the philanthropy concept advocated by Themistios.

In 1832 Wilhelm Dindorf published the first modern edition of all speeches in Leipzig, in 1866 Leonhard Spengel published the first modern edition of the paraphrases.

Henrik Ibsen lets Themistios appear as the speaker “Themisteos” in his drama Kaiser und Galiläer , which premiered in 1903 and deals with the life and death of Emperor Julian.

Text output

Talk

  • Heinrich Schenkl , Glanville Downey, Albert Francis Norman (eds.): Themistii orationes quae supersunt. 3 volumes, Teubner, Leipzig 1965–1974 (edition of the speeches; volume 3 contains fragments of lost works as well as the Syrian text from “About virtue” and the Arabic text from “About the government of the state”. Cf. the very critical volume on the first volume Review by Günther Christian Hansen in Gnomon Vol. 38, 1966, pp. 662–666)

Aristotle paraphrases ( digitized  - Internet Archive as facsimiles)

  • Max Wallies (Ed.): Themistii analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 5 Part 1). Georg Reimer, Berlin 1900 (critical edition).
  • Richard Heinze (Ed.): Themistii in libros Aristotelis de anima paraphrasis (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 5 Part 3). Georg Reimer, Berlin 1899 (critical edition).
  • Heinrich Schenkl (Ed.): Themistii in Aristotelis physica paraphrasis (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 5 Part 2). Georg Reimer, Berlin 1900 (critical edition).

Fragment "To the Emperor"

  • Eugenio Amato, Ilaria Ramelli (ed.): L'inedito Πρὸς βασιλέα di Temistio . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 99, 2006, pp. 1-67 (critical edition, Italian translation and detailed investigation).

Medieval and early modern translations

Arabic

  • Aburraḥmān Badawi (ed.): Arisṭū ʿind al ʿArab: Dirāsa wa-nuṣūṣ gair manšūra . Volume 1, Cairo 1947, pp. 309-325 (Arabic version of the treatise on syllogistics).
  • Malcolm Cameron Lyons (Ed.): An Arabic Translation of Themistius Commentary on Aristoteles De anima . University of South Carolina Press, Columbia (South Carolina) 1973 (Critical Edition).

Hebrew

  • Samuel Landauer (Ed.): Themistii in libros Aristotelis de caelo paraphrasis (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 5 Part 4). Georg Reimer, Berlin 1902 (critical edition of the Hebrew text and its Latin translation by Mosè Alatino; online ).
  • Samuel Landauer (Ed.): Themistii in Aristotelis metaphysicorum librum Λ paraphrasis (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 5 Part 5). Georg Reimer, Berlin 1903 (critical edition of the Hebrew text and its Latin translation by Mosè Finzi).
  • Shalom Rosenberg, Charles Manekin (eds.): Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Themistius' Commentary on the Analytica priora . In: Mosheh Idel (ed.): Sēfer hay-yôvēl li-Šelomo Pînes bi-melē'at lô šemônîm šānā . Volume 2, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 267-274.

Latin (medieval)

  • Gerard Verbeke (Ed.): Thémistius: Commentaire sur le traité de l'âme d'Aristote (= Corpus Latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum Vol. 1). Brill, Leiden 1973 (critical edition of the Latin translation by Wilhelm von Moerbeke).
  • James Reginald O'Donnell (Ed.): Themistius' Paraphrasis of the Posterior Analytics in Gerard of Cremona's Translation . In: Mediaeval Studies 20, 1958, pp. 239-315 (critical edition of the Latin translation by Gerhard von Cremona).

Latin (Renaissance)

  • Charles Lohr (Ed.): Themistii libri paraphraseos… Interprete Hermolao Barbaro (= Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Versiones Latinae Vol. 18). Minerva, Frankfurt a. M. 1978 (reprint of the Venice 1499 edition with introduction by the publisher Lohr).
  • The humanistic Latin translations of Hebrew versions of the paraphrases are edited together with the Hebrew texts, see above under “Hebrew”.

Modern translations

German

English

  • Robert J. Penella (translator): The Private Orations of Themistius . University of California Press, Berkeley 2000, ISBN 0-520-21821-3 .
  • Alberto Rigolio (translator): Themistius: On Virtue. In: James Wilberding, Julia Trompeter , Alberto Rigolio (transl.): Michael of Ephesus: On Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 10, with Themistius, On Virtue. Bloomsbury Academic, London et al. 2019, ISBN 978-1-3500-8507-7 , pp. 207-276
  • Robert B. Todd (translator): Themistius: On Aristotle, On the Soul . Duckworth, London 1996, ISBN 0-7156-2659-0 .
  • Robert B. Todd (translator): Themistius: On Aristotle, Physics 1-3 . Bloomsbury, London 2012, ISBN 978-0-7156-3922-1
  • Robert B. Todd (translator): Themistius: On Aristotle, Physics 4 . Duckworth, London 2003, ISBN 0-7156-3199-3 .
  • Robert B. Todd (translator): Themistius: On Aristotle, Physics 5-8 . Duckworth, London 2008, ISBN 978-0-7156-3664-0 .
  • Shalom Rosenberg and Charles Manekin (transl.): Themistius on Modal Logic. Excerpts from a commentary on the prior analytics attributed to Themistius . In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 11, 1988, pp. 83-103.

French

  • Aburraḥmān Badawi: Traité de Thémistius en réponse à Maxime au sujet de la réduction de la deuxième et la troisième figures à la première . In: Aburraḥmān Badawi: La transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe . 2nd Edition. Vrin, Paris 1987, ISBN 2-7116-0047-5 , pp. 180-194 (French translation of the medieval Arabic translation of the work on syllogistics, which is not preserved in the original Greek text).
  • Rémi Brague : Thémistius: Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d'Aristote (livre Lambda) . Vrin, Paris 1999, ISBN 2-7116-1411-5 .

Tools

literature

Overview representations in manuals

  • Inna Kupreeva: Themistius. In: Lloyd P. Gerson (Ed.): The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-76440-7 , pp. 397-416
  • Jacques Schamp, Robert B. Todd, John Watt: Thémistios. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Volume 6, CNRS Éditions, Paris 2016, ISBN 978-2-271-08989-2 , pp. 850-900
  • Michael Schramm: Themistios. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Hrsg.): Philosophy of the imperial era and late antiquity (= outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/1). Schwabe, Basel 2018, ISBN 978-3-7965-3698-4 , pp. 406–427, 451–455
  • Elżbieta Szabat: Themistios. In: Paweł Janiszewski, Krystyna Stebnicka, Elżbieta Szabat: Prosopography of Greek Rhetors and Sophists of the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2015, ISBN 978-0-19-871340-1 , pp. 353-356
  • Robert B. Todd: Themistius . In: Virginia Brown (ed.): Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries . The Catholic University of America Press, Washington (DC) 2003, ISBN 0-8132-1300-2 , pp. 57-102.

Investigations

  • Bruno Colpi: The παιδεία of Themistios. A contribution to the history of education in the fourth century AD . Peter Lang, Bern 1987, ISBN 3-261-03699-0 .
  • Robert Malcolm Errington : Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904.
  • Thomas Gerhardt: Philosophy and rulership from the perspective of Themistios . In: Andreas Goltz et al. (Ed.): Scholars in antiquity . Böhlau, Cologne 2002, ISBN 3-412-02802-9 , pp. 187-218.
  • Peter J. Heather : Themistius: A political philosopher . In: Mary Whitby (ed.): The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity . Brill, Leiden 1998, pp. 125-150.
  • John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court . The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1995, ISBN 0-472-10485-3 ( review by Tim Hegedus ).

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ On the place of birth see James G. Smeal: Themistios: the twenty-third Oration , Dissertation Nashville (Tennessee) 1989, p. 6 f. and note 27; John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 31 f.
  2. ↑ On Eugenios see Omer Ballériaux: Eugénios, père de Thémistios et philosophe néoplatonicien . In: L'Antiquité Classique 65, 1996, pp. 135-160; Omer Ballériaux: Eugénios . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 3, Paris 2000, p. 306 f.
  3. ↑ The interpretation of the relevant source statement is uncertain, see James G. Smeal: Themistios: the twenty-third Oration , Dissertation Nashville (Tennessee) 1989, p. 8, note 34.
  4. ^ Statements by Themistius about his inadequate knowledge of Latin cannot be interpreted in such a way that he understood no Latin at all; see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: pp. 866 f. Note 23, p. 879 f. and note 96.
  5. ↑ a b The timing of the speech is disputed; it is unclear whether it was actually presented to the emperor in person. See Werner Portmann: On the date of Themistius' first speech . In: Klio 74, 1992, pp. 411-421 (for the year 351); Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 27 f .; Robert Malcolm Errington: The Date of Themistius' First Speech . In: Klio 83, 2001, pp. 161–166 (for the year 350); see. but the counter-arguments of Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 69–71.
  6. ↑ For the background see Jorit Wintjes: Zur Datierung von Themistius or. 4 . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96, 2003, pp. 703–708, here: 703 f.
  7. ↑ On the controversial question of the reason for the speech, see Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 68 f .; Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 871 f.
  8. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 872.
  9. ↑ Themistios, Speech 34:13. See Robert J. Penella (translator): The Private Orations of Themistius , Berkeley 2000, p. 219, note 19; Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 872.
  10. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861–904, here: p. 865 and note 18.
  11. ↑ Jorit Wintjes: Das Leben des Libanius , Rahden 2005, pp. 141–143.
  12. ↑ See also Lawrence J. Daly: Themistius' Refusal of a Magistracy . In: Byzantion 53, 1983, pp. 164-212; Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 872; Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 45 f. and note 8 and 9.
  13. ↑ See also Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 101-107.
  14. ^ On the dating of John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 110 f.
  15. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: p. 868 and note 29; Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 139 and note 7.
  16. ^ Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 138-142; Lawrence J. Daly: 'In a borderland': Themistius' ambivalence toward Julian . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 73, 1980, pp. 1-11.
  17. ↑ On this not preserved panegyric and its dating see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 873, 897-899.
  18. ^ Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 874.
  19. ^ Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: pp. 875 f., P. 883 note 113; Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator) judge differently: Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 101 Note 6. The topical character of such complaints should be noted, see Thomas Gerhardt: Philosophy and rulership from the perspective of Themistios . In: Andreas Goltz et al. (Ed.): Gelehre in der Antike , Cologne 2002, pp. 187–218, here: 198.
  20. ↑ Themistios, Speech 8,8; see. 10.2.
  21. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: p. 878 and note 91.
  22. ^ Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 889-893.
  23. ↑ Robert Malcolm Errington: Church and State in the First Years of Theodosius I. In: Chiron 27, 1997, pp. 21-72, here: p. 28 note 38.
  24. ↑ Themistios, Discourse 8: 17-20.
  25. ↑ For details see Robert Malcolm Errington: Theodosius and the Goths . In: Chiron 26, 1996, pp. 1-27, here: 14-22.
  26. ↑ On the controversial date of the inauguration see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: pp. 894 f. Note 175. Contrary to the prevailing view in research, according to which Themistius held the office only once (under Theodosius), Thomas Brauch has repeatedly put forward his hypothesis that the speaker had already been city prefect in the 1960s. See Thomas Brauch: Patristic and Byzantine Witness to an Urban Prefectship of Themistius under Valens . In: Byzantion 71, 2001, pp. 325-382.
  27. ↑ Kevin Wilkinson: Palladas and the Age of Constantine . In: The Journal of Roman Studies 99, 2009, pp. 36–60.
  28. ↑ Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 286–298.
  29. ↑ Examples in Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 144 f., 208 f.
  30. ^ On the dating of Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861–904, here: p. 868, note 31.
  31. ↑ For the dating see Jorit Wintjes: Zur Datierung von Themistius or. 4 . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96, 2003, pp. 703–708.
  32. ↑ For repetition see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 874 f.
  33. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 880 f.
  34. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 881-883.
  35. ^ Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861–904, here: p. 885 note 128 rejects this view; Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator) also judge: Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 173 and note 4.
  36. ↑ On the dating Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 184; Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 887, 902-904 (advocates February / March 370).
  37. ↑ See also Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 889-891; Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, pp. 214–216.
  38. ↑ For background, see Robert Malcolm Errington: Theodosius and the Goths . In: Chiron 26, 1996, pp. 1-27, here: 8 f.
  39. ↑ See also Robert Malcolm Errington: Theodosius and the Goths . In: Chiron 26, 1996, pp. 1-27, here: 9-13.
  40. ^ Robert Malcolm Errington: Theodosius and the Goths . In: Chiron 26, 1996, pp. 1-27, here: 14 f.
  41. ↑ For the dating see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 895 f .; Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 288 f.
  42. ↑ For the dating see Robert M. Errington: Themistius and His Emperors . In: Chiron 30, 2000, pp. 861-904, here: 897; Hartmut Leppin, Werner Portmann (translator): Themistios: Staatsreden , Stuttgart 1998, p. 301.
  43. ↑ See also John Vanderspoel: The "Themistius Collection" of Commentaries on Plato and Aristotle . In: Phoenix 43, 1989, pp. 162-164.
  44. ^ Henry J. Blumenthal : Photius on Themistius (Cod. 74): Did Themistius write Commentaries on Aristotle? In: Hermes 107, 1979, pp. 168-182; John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 226 f.
  45. ↑ On the presumed recipient, see Eugenio Amato, Ilaria Ramelli (ed.): L'inedito Πρὸς βασιλέα di Temistio . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 99, 2006, pp. 1–67, here: 60–65.
  46. ↑ Edited in: Heinrich Schenkl, Glanville Downey, Albert Francis Norman (ed.): Themistii orationes quae supersunt , Volume 3, Leipzig 1974, pp. 73–119. For authenticity and the question of the recipient, see Eugenio Amato, Ilaria Ramelli (ed.): L'inedito Πρὸς βασιλέα di Temistio . In: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 99, 2006, pp. 1–67, here: 45–60.
  47. ↑ See also John N. Mattock: The supposed Epitome by Themistius of Aristotle's Zoological Works . In: Albert Dietrich (Ed.): Files of the VII. Congress for Arabic and Islamic Studies , Göttingen 1976, pp. 260–267.
  48. ^ Henry J. Blumenthal: Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle? In: Richard Sorabji (Ed.): Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence , 2nd, revised edition, London 2016, pp. 119–131 (see pp. XVII – XIX); Guy Guldentops: Themistius on Evil . In: Phronesis 46, 2001, pp. 189-208; Gérard Verbeke: Themistius . In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography , Vol. 13, New York 1981, pp. 307-309, here: 307.
  49. ^ Omer Ballériaux: Thémistius et le neoplatonisme . In: Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 12, 1994, pp. 171–200; Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 2 f.
  50. ^ John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 21.
  51. ↑ Dominic J. O'Meara: Platonopolis , Oxford 2003, pp. 206-208.
  52. ↑ Dominic J. O'Meara: Platonopolis , Oxford 2003, p. 206.
  53. ^ Lawrence J. Daly: Themistius' Concept of Philanthropia . In: Byzantion 45, 1975, pp. 22-40; Lawrence J. Daly: The Mandarin and the Barbarian: The Response of Themistius to the Gothic Challenge . In: Historia 21, 1972, pp. 351-379, here: 354 ff.
  54. ↑ Themistios, Speech 5: 9-12. For background, see Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, pp. 154–158; Lawrence J. Daly: Themistius' Plea for Religious Tolerance . In: Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 12, 1971, pp. 65-79.
  55. ↑ Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 201.
  56. ↑ See Guy Guldentops: Themistius on Evil . In: Phronesis 46, 2001, pp. 189-208.
  57. ↑ See also Frederic M. Schroeder, Robert B. Todd: Two Greek Aristotelian Commentators on the Intellect , Toronto 1990, pp. 37-39; Omer Ballériaux: Thémistius et le neoplatonisme . In: Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 12, 1994, pp. 171–200, here: 173–186.
  58. ↑ Guy Guldentops: La science suprême selon Themistius . In: Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 19, 2001, pp. 99–120, here: 110 f.
  59. ^ Salomo Pines: Some distinctive metaphysical conceptions in Themistius' commentary on Book Lambda and their place in the history of philosophy . In: Jürgen Wiesner (Ed.): Aristoteles. Work and Effect , Vol. 2, Berlin 1987, pp. 177–204, here: 186–189.
  60. ^ Tae-Soo Lee: The Greek tradition of Aristotelian syllogistics in late antiquity , Göttingen 1984, pp. 127–132.
  61. ^ Tae-Soo Lee: The Greek tradition of Aristotelian syllogistics in late antiquity , Göttingen 1984, p. 123.
  62. ↑ Libanios, Letters 1186.2, ed. by Richard Foerster : Libanii opera , vol. 11, Leipzig 1922, p. 271 f., here: 272.
  63. ↑ Gregor von Nazianz, Letters 24 and 38.
  64. ↑ Sozomenos, Church History 6,36,6–6,37,1. For Socrates' very good opinion about Themistios see Martin Wallraff : Der Kirchenhistoriker Sokrates , Göttingen 1997, p. 97.
  65. ↑ Ammianus Marcellinus 31,4,4; see Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 201.
  66. ↑ For the Arabic translations see Aburraḥmān Badawi: La transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe , Paris 1987, pp. 115–117; Robert B. Todd: Themistius . In: Virginia Brown (ed.): Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries , Vol. 8, Washington (DC) 2003, pp. 57-102, here: 60 f.
  67. ^ Salomo Pines: Some distinctive metaphysical conceptions in Themistius' commentary on Book Lambda and their place in the history of philosophy . In: Jürgen Wiesner (Ed.): Aristoteles. Work and Effect , Vol. 2, Berlin 1987, pp. 177–204, here: 191–194.
  68. ^ Salomo Pines: Some distinctive metaphysical conceptions in Themistius' commentary on Book Lambda and their place in the history of philosophy . In: Jürgen Wiesner (Ed.): Aristoteles. Work and Effect , Vol. 2, Berlin 1987, pp. 177–204, here: 194–196.
  69. ↑ On the medieval Jewish reception of this translation, see Rémi Brague (translator): Thémistius: Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d'Aristote (livre Lambda) , Paris 1999, pp. 30–33.
  70. ^ Edmund B. Fryde: The 'Paraphrase' by Themistios of Aristotle's De Anima, and St Thomas Aquinas . In: The English Historical Review 109, 1994, pp. 952-959.
  71. ↑ See Martin Grabmann : Medieval Latin translations of writings by the Aristotle commentators Johannes Philoponos, Alexander von Aphrodisias and Themistios , Munich 1929, pp. 40 f., 66–68.
  72. ^ Edward P. Mahoney: Themistius and the Agent Intellect in James of Viterbo and Other Thirteenth Century Philosophers . In: Augustiniana 23, 1973, pp. 422-467, here: 426, 438-441.
  73. ↑ See on this edition Martin Sicherheitsl : The Greek first editions of Vettore Trincavelli , Paderborn 1993, pp. 8–27.
  74. ↑ On Vernias and Nifo's reception of Themistios see Edward P. Mahoney: Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism . In: Dominic J. O'Meara (ed.): Neoplatonism and Christian Thought , Norfolk (Virginia) 1982, pp. 169-177, here: 170-173.
  75. ^ Quoted in Heinrich Schenkl: Contributions to the text history of the speeches of Themistios , Vienna 1919, p. 11.
  76. ↑ See Kurt Treu : Themistios and Leibniz . In: Philologus 112, 1968, pp. 297-302.
  77. ↑ Quoted in Wilhelm Dindorf (ed.): Themistii orationes ex codice Mediolanensi emendatae , Leipzig 1832, p. XII ( online ).
  78. ↑ Examples in John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 2 f.
  79. ^ John Vanderspoel: Themistius and the Imperial Court , Ann Arbor 1995, p. 4 f.
  80. ↑ Peter Heather, David Moncur: Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century , Liverpool 2001, p. 41 f.
  81. ↑ Quoted in Riccardo Maisano: Discorsi di Temistio , Torino 1995, p. 86. See Lawrence J. Daly: The Mandarin and the Barbarian: The Response of Themistius to the Gothic Challenge . In: Historia 21, 1972, pp. 351–379, here: p. 375 and note 91.
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on October 16, 2010 in this version .
personal data
SURNAME Themistios
BRIEF DESCRIPTION Rhetor and philosopher of late antiquity
DATE OF BIRTH at 317
DATE OF DEATH after 388