The eleventh-century Byzantine compiler Cedrenus includes a unique story in the midst of his otherwise traditional and hagiographic material on the emperor Constantine. Mentioning the outbreak of war between the Roman and Persian empires, he describes the cause of the breakdown of peace somewhat as follows. A certain Metrodorus, who was of Persian origin, went to visit the Brahmins in India to study philosophy and won the reputation of being a holy man through his asceticism. He also built water (...) mills and baths, unknown to the Indians till that time. Having acquired this reputation, he entered the temples and took away many precious stones and pearls. He also received gifts from the king of the Indians. On his return to Byzantium he gave them to the emperor Constantine as being gifts of his own. When Constantine expressed his astonishment, Metrodorus said he had sent other gifts by the land route but that they had been detained by the Persians. Constantine then wrote a strong protest to Sapor demanding the gifts but received no reply; thus the peace was broken. This remarkable conte, more appropriate to the Arabian Nights than to sober history, is generally supposed to be referred to in a passage in Ammianus. Towards the end of a long section commenting on the personality and achievements of Julian, Ammianus turns briefly to the question of the ultimate responsibility for the Persian War which ended so disastrously for Julian and the Roman Empire: et quoniam eum obtrectatoribus novos bellorum tumultus ad perniciem rei communis insimulant concitasse, sciant docente veritate perspicue, non Iulianum sed Constantinum ardores Parthicos succendisse, cum Metrodori mendaciis avidius acquiescit, ut dudum rettulimus plane. (shrink)

The paper presents a late antique collection of arithmetical epigrams attributed to Metrodorus. The main aim is a reconstruction of Metrodorus’ text, that consisted of roughly 40 mathematical problems plus solutions. The reconstruction is based on the epigrams and scholia to be found in the Greek Anthology (book 14). The first section of the paper deals with questions of textual transmission, authorship, dating, language and style. The second part examines typical topics of the epigrams, their place in the (...) literary tradition, instances of moral admonition that can be found in some of them as well as the deeper meaning of the numbers involved in solving the problems. The last section considers the purpose for which Metrodorus’ collection might have been composed. Finally, the reconstructed Greek text is presented in an appendix. (shrink)

This short note deals with an epigram preserved by the Anthologia Palatina Book IX (360) attributed to a Metrodorus whom, especially for chronological reasons, one tends to identify with the Epicurean Metrodorus of Lampsacus, at least from the Phoinix von Kolophon by Gustav Adolph Gerhard (1909). This epigram looks like a “symmetrical” polemical reply to the immediately preceding one (AP IX 359), which can be attributed (but not without difficulty) to the Hellenistic poet Posidippus. The careful historical-philosophical examination (...) of the contents of this alleged Epicurean epigram (360) leads to believe that it is basically impossible that the author is an Epicurean philosopher such as Metrodorus. (shrink)

Author: Domaradzki Mikołaj Title: HUMANISTIC INTERPRETATION AND THE PROBLEM OF ANCIENT ALLEGORESIS (Interpretacja humanistyczna a problem starożytnej alegorezy) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.12, number: 2011/1, pages: 361-372 Keywords: ANCIENT ALLEGORESIS, HERMENEUTICS, METRODORUS OF LAMPSACUS, HUMANISTIC INTERPRETATION, JERZY KMITA Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:The purpose of the article is to present the phenomenon of allegorical interpretation as one of most important cultural events that has ultimately resulted in the emergence (...) of modern hermeneutics. More specifically, the paper argues that the hermeneutical activity of Metrodorus of Lampsacus embodies the practice that is nowadays commonly referred to as ‘humanistic interpretation’. Having established that the exegesis of Metrodorus can be characterized as a type of humanistic interpretation, the article proceeds to demonstrate that the allegoresis in question was in fact adaptive in its nature. While Metrodorus’ ideas are suggested to have possibly contributed to the philosophical overcoming of the so called syncretic-magical thinking, the allegorical support of the transformation of mythos into logos is analyzed within the framework of Jerzy Kmita’s theory of culture. (shrink)

Introduction Codex Upsaliensis Graecus 8 contains a miscellany of Greek texts, mostly from the Byzantine period, ranging all the way from Stephanites et Ichnelates to botanical lexica. Among these varied texts is a collection of mathematical problems on ff. 324r–331r. We might compare it to other known Byzantine textbooks of mathematical problems, such as the following: the mathematical epigrams attributed to Metrodorus in the Greek Anthology (14:116–146); the papyrus found at Akhmim from the 7th or 8th century; Nicholas Rhabdas' (...) letter on mathematics to Theodore Tzabouches; an anonymous collection found in the 14th century cod. Par. Suppl. Gr. 387 (Vogel 1968); and another anonymous collection from the latter half of the 15th century found in cod. Vind. Phil. Gr. 65 (Hunger-Vogel). The collection in Uppsala most resembles these last two textbooks. (shrink)

Philodemus of Gadara was a poet and Epicurean philosopher who, after leaving Gadara, studied in Athens under Zeno of Sidon before moving to Italy. Once in Italy, he lived in the area around the Bay of Naples, where he belonged to a circle of Epicureans that included Siro as well as the Roman poets Vergil, L. Varius Rufus, Quintilius Varus, and Plotius Tucca. His epigrams were preserved as part of the Greek Anthology, while his prose works were discovered at the (...) Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum, carbonized by the first pyroclastic surge of Mount Vesuvius in 79 C.E. He wrote on a wide range of topics, including epistemology, ethics, theology, aesthetics, logic and science, and the history of philosophy, but not physics. In his works, he presents himself as an entirely orthodox Epicurean. He does so by explicating the teachings of earlier Epicureans (especially those of Epicurus, Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyaenus), defending the positions of his teacher Zeno of Sidon, arguing against fellow Epicureans whom he perceives to have strayed from orthodoxy, and advancing Epicurean positions against other schools like the Academics, Peripatetics, Stoics, Cynics, and Cyrenaics. (shrink)

Sextus’ interpretation of Xenophanes’ scepticism in M 7.49–52 is often cited but has never been subject to detailed analysis. Such analysis reveals that Sextus’ interpretation raises far more complex problems than has been recognised. Scholars invariably assume one of two ways of construing his account of Xenophanes B34, without observing that the choice between these two alternatives poses an interpretive dilemma. Some scholars take it that Sextus ascribes to Xenophanes the view that one may have knowledge without knowing that one (...) has knowledge. Others take it that he ascribes to Xenophanes the view that one may have true belief without knowing that one has true belief. A close examination of Sextus’ paraphrase exposes a crucial but overlooked complication. Sextus elides Xenophanes’ pivotal distinction between knowing “the clear and certain” and believing “what has been fulfilled” . He eliminates altogether tetelesmenon from his analysis of B34, and expands the role of to saphes. I demonstrate that, as a result, Xenophanes B34, as interpreted by Sextus, does not consistently and straightforwardly express either view or view . Sextus, I argue, in fact develops a fundamentally incoherent interpretation of Xenophanes B34. On Sextus’ interpretation, Xenophanes justifies the proposition “No human knows” by arguing that, even if a human does, in fact, know, he does not know that he knows. Finally, I argue that Sextus’ incoherent account reflects not unthinking negligence, but a sophisticated if ultimately doomed attempt to interpret the logical structure of Xenophanes B34 in line with later models of second-order scepticism. (shrink)