Abstract
According to the prevalent scholarly opinion, Eudorus of Alexandria supposes two interrelated levels within the same metaphysical hierarchy: one transcendent principle (to hen) at the highest level and two opposing principles (monas and aoristos dyas) at the subjacent level. This paper presents an alternative interpretation, arguing that Eudorus’ report, in fact, involves two different explanations regarding the first principle(s): one strictly monistic and the other dualistic. Eudorus holds the former approach (the so-called highest teaching, which is particularly influenced by Platonic henotheism) to represent the pinnacle of Pythagorean metaphysics according to which the latter, secondary teaching ought to be construed. In the final analysis, interpreting dualism through the lens of henology results in a somewhat idiosyncratic yet Pythagoreanising account of a Monad and Dyad that are, if understood as principle, identical to the One.
Danksagungen
Herzlicher Dank gilt Dominic O’Meara, Jan Opsomer, Christoph Poetsch, Rareș I. Marinescu und den anonymen Gutachtern, deren wertvolle Anmerkungen frühere Entwürfe des Textes ungemein bereicherten. Diese Fassung ist darum bemüht, ihren Einwänden und Vorschlägen nach Möglichkeit gerecht zu werden.
Literaturverzeichnis
Baltes, M., and M.-L. Lakmann. 2006. “Eudoros.” In Der Neue Pauly, edited by H. Cancik, and H. Schneider, Brill Reference Online. Available at https://doi.org/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e404280.Search in Google Scholar
Baltussen, H., M. Atkinson, M. Share, and I. Mueller. 2012. Simplicius: On Aristotle Physics 1.5–9. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. 2005. “Eudoro di Alessandria: alle origini del platonismo imperiale.” In L’eredità platonica: studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo, edited by M. Bonazzi, and V. Celluprica, 115–60. Napoli: Bibliopolis.Search in Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. 2007. “Eudorus of Alexandria and Early Imperial Platonism.” In Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC–200 AD (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Suppl. 94), Vol. 2, edited by R. Sorabji, and R. W. Sharples, 365–77. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London.10.1111/j.2041-5370.2007.tb02435.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bonazzi, M. 2013. “Pythagoreanising Aristotle: Eudorus and the Systematisation of Platonism.” In Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century BC, edited by M. Schofield, 160–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139096713.010Search in Google Scholar
Boys-Stones, G. 2018. Platonist Philosophy 80 BC to AD 250. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139050203Search in Google Scholar
Diels, H. 1882–1895. Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/posteriores commentaria (CAG 9–10). Berlin: G. Reimer.10.1515/9783112516669Search in Google Scholar
Dillon, J. M. 1981. “Eudoros und die Anfänge des Mittelplatonismus.” In Der Mittelplatonismus, edited by C. Zintzen, 3–32. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Search in Google Scholar
Dillon, J. M. 1996. The Middle Platonists. 80 B.C. to A.D. 220, 2nd. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dodds, E. R. 1928. “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One’.” The Classical Quarterly 22 (3/4): 129–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800029591.Search in Google Scholar
Dörrie, H. 1944. “Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandreia.” Hermes 79 (1/2): 25–39.Search in Google Scholar
Dörrie, H., and M. Baltes. 1996. Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen – System – Entwicklung. Band. 4: Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus (Bausteine 101–124). Stuttgart: frommann-holzboog.Search in Google Scholar
Halfwassen, J. 2006. Der Aufstieg zum Einen. Untersuchungen zu Platon und Plotin, 2nd ed. München & Leipzig: Κ. G. Saur Verlag.10.1515/9783110932737Search in Google Scholar
Halfwassen, J. 2015. Auf den Spuren des Einen. Studien zur Metaphysik und ihrer Geschichte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Search in Google Scholar
Horky, P. S. (forthcoming). Pythagorean Philosophy 250 BCE–200 CE. An Introduction and Collection of Sources in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Männlein-Robert, I. 2018. “Eudoros von Alexandrien.” In Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 5/1: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Begründet von Friedrich Überweg), edited by C. Riedweg, C. Horn, and D. Wyrwa, 555–65. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. 1992. Heresiography in Context. Hippolytus’ Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy. Leiden & New York & Köln: E. J. Brill.10.1163/9789004320765Search in Google Scholar
Mansfeld, J. 1988. “Compatible Alternatives: Middle Platonist Theology and the Xenophanes Reception.” In Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, edited by R. B. van den Broek, 92–117. Leiden & New York & København & Köln: E. J. Brill.10.1163/9789004296671_006Search in Google Scholar
Mazzarelli, C. 1985. “Raccolta e interpretazione delle testimonianze e dei frammenti del medioplatonico Eudoro di Alessandria. Parte prima: testo e traduzione delle testimonianze e dei frammenti sicuri.” Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 77 (2): 197–209.Search in Google Scholar
O’Meara, D. J. 1990. Pythagoras Revived. Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198239130.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Raven, J. E. 1948. Pythagoreans and Eleatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Riedweg, C. 2002. Pythagoras: Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung. Eine Einführung. München: C. H. Beck.Search in Google Scholar
Rist, J. M. 1962. “The Neoplatonic One and Plato’s Parmenides.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 93: 389–401. https://doi.org/10.2307/283770.Search in Google Scholar
Sedley, D. 1989. “Philosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman World.” In Philosophia Togata, edited by M. Griffin, and J. Barnes, 97–119. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oso/9780198150855.003.0004Search in Google Scholar
Staab, G. 2009. “Das Kennzeichen des neuen Pythagoreismus innerhalb der kaiserzeitlichen Platoninterpretation: ‚Pythagoreischer‘ Dualismus und Einprinzipienlehre im Einklang.” In The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the Early Empire and their Philosophical Contexts (Collection d’Études Classiques 23), edited by M. Bonazzi, and J. Opsomer, 55–88. Louvain & Namur & Paris & Walpole, MA: Éditions Peeters, Société des Études Classiques.Search in Google Scholar
Thesleff, H. 1961. An Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period. Åbo: Åbo Akademi.Search in Google Scholar
Tornau, C. 2000. “Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatos von Gades: Zu Simplikios in Ph. 230,34-231,24 Diels.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 143 (2): 197–220.Search in Google Scholar
Trapp, M. 2007. “Neopythagoreans.” In Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC–200 AD (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Suppl. 94), Vol. 2 edited by R. Sorabji, and R. W. Sharples, 347–63. London: Institute of Classical Studies & University of London.Search in Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. 1969. “ΕΠΕΚΕΙΝΑ ΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ.” Vigiliae Christianae 23 (2): 91–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/1583306.Search in Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. 1973. “Neopythagoreanism and the Transcendent Absolute.” Symbolae Osloenses 48 (1): 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00397677308590652.Search in Google Scholar
Zhmud, L. 2019. “What is Pythagorean in the Pseudo-Pythagorean Literature?” Philologus 163 (1): 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/phil-2018-0003.Search in Google Scholar
CONVIVIUM, association loi de 1901 for this journal.
