Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:09:03.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Last Days of the Academy at Athens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2019

Alan Cameron
Alan Cameron*
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 15 , 1969 , pp. 7 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Page 7 note 1 More recent scholarship has been unromantic enough to place the founding of Monte Cassino in 530.

Page 7 note 2 The story is told by Agathias, Hist. 11. 30-1.

Page 7 note 3 It would be wearisome and pointless to enumerate the guilty parties. Some compound the felony by claiming that Justinian enacted ‘that henceforth no one should teach the ancient philosophy’ (T. Whittaker, The Neoplatonists* [1918], p. 182). This is amply contradicted by piain and well-known facts.

Page 7 note 4 ‘From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens', Dumbarton Oaks Papers xix (1965), 197.

Page 7 note 5 ‘Athenian Twilight', JRS XLIX (1959), 70.

Page 8 note 1 Cod. Just. 1. 5. 18. 4; 1. 11. 10. 2.

Page 8 note 2 Chron. p. 451 Bonn.

Page 8 note 3 Dig., Const. omn. 7.

Page 8 note 4 Below, pp. 9 , 21.

Page 9 note 1 Later Roman Empire I (1964), viii.

Page 9 note 2 Bury, Later Roman Empire II2 (1923), 368 f., Stein, Bas-Empire II (1949), 371 f.

Page 9 note 3 Stein, Bas-Empire 11, 799 f.

Page 9 note 4 L. G. Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena to Piatonic Philosophy (1962), pp. xv-xx. Those who know this excellent work will see at once how much the present article owes to it.

Page 9 note 5 Cf. Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena, pp. xi-xii, against Saffrey's view ﹛REG LXVII [1954], 400-1) that part of Ammonius’ pact with the patriarch Athanasius (p. 14) was not to lecture on Plato.

Page 10 note 1 Dodds, Greeks and the Irrational (1951), pp. 283 f., C. Zintzen, ‘Die Wertung von Mystik und Magie in der neuplatonischen Philosophie', Rh. Mus. cvm (1965), 71-100.

Page 10 note 2 Lost save for one line quoted by Johannes Lydus, De Magg. v. 26.

Page 10 note 3 Averil Cameron, Agathias (1969), pp. 89 f.

Page 10 note 4 Damascius, V. Isid. fr. 351, p. 287 Zintzen, with Saffrey and Westerink, Proclus: Thiologie platonicienne 1 (1968), pp. xxxiii-iv (who do not consider that he came of a Chrisüan family or was ever Diadochus: I am not convinced, but it does not matter for our present purposes).

Page 11 note 1 For a more idealistic but factually incorrect account see G. Downey, ‘Julian and Justinian and the Unity of Faith and Culture', Church History xxvm (1959), 344 f.

Page 11 note 2 In Ale. 141. 1-3.

Page 11 note 3 Ibid. 2. 280-2.

Page 11 note 4 Anonymous Prolegomena, pp. xiv-xv.

Page 11 note 5 Mem. d. R. Accad. d. Lincei, cl. d. stör. mor. XIV (1913), 413 f.

Page 11 note 6 Rev. Philos. XLH (1896), 286.

Page 12 note 1 Bas-Empire H (1949), 754 n. 1.

Page 12 note 2 Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena, pp. x-xi, xiii.

Page 13 note 1 A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides2 (1946), 353 f.

Page 13 note 2 On the question of the site of the fifth-century Academy and its relation to Plato's Academy, see Frantz, Dumbarton Oaks Papers xix (1965), 193.

Page 13 note 3 W. A. Oldfather, Loeb Epictetus, 1, p. ix n. 1.

Page 13 note 4 A. C. Lloyd, in Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (1967), pp. 317-18.

Page 14 note 1 The commentary contains some interesting Manichaean lore, part of which, not elsewhere preserved in Greco-Roman sources, can be paralled in Iranian texts. And at p. 3. 44 f., where the Dübner text ascribes one detail to ‘a certain sage among thetn', Mme Hadot has discovered that better MSS insert an £|Jo(, implying a personal, not written, source. Accordingly, she suggests that Simplicius met this source in Persia and wrote the commentary on his return. A Manichaean specialist (or even exile) in Alexandria is perfectly possible, of course, but even if she is right, most of the above can still stand. Provisionally, I continue to believe that what Simplicius says has a contemporary rather than retrospective reference. It is to be hoped that Mme Hadot will soon be able to publish the results of her research in füll: meanwhile, see Arch. für Gesch. d. Philos. li (1969), 46, 56-7. For another dating argument, see now P. Merlan, Greek, Roman and Byiantine Studies ix (1968), 201.

Page 14 note 2 P. 138 Dübner.

Page 14 note 3 104. 21-3, cf. Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena, p. xii.

Page 14 note 4 On this affair see Saffrey, REG LXVII (1954), 400 f., Westerink, Anon. Prolegomena, pp. xi f., E. Evrard, REG LXXVIII (1965), 595 f-, and now P. Merlan, Greek, Roman and Byiantine Studies IX (1968), 203.

Page 15 note 1 Cod. Ven. Marc. 481, fo. ioov, with the note on fo. 122” making it clear that the Ammonius is meant, but adding that’ others’ ascribe it to Nonnus. Cf. P. Maas, By. neugr. Jahrb. iv (1923), 268.

Page 15 note 2 By Z. Zeh. xvill (1909), 469, ibid. XIX (1910), 277; fr. 315, p. 251. 9 f. Zintzen.

Page 15 note 3 22. 14 f., cf. Westerink, Anon. Prolegomena, p. xviii n. 60.

Page 15 note 4 V. Lid. p. 64. 1 Z.

Page 15 note 5 y. IsiJ, p. 7 5 . 9 Z.

Page 15 note 6 J. Geffcken, Ausgang d. gr.-röm. Heidentums1 (1929), p. 314 n. 89, to which add David, prol. ed. Busse, p. 79. 1 f., for parallels to the passage quoted above (not discussed in H. P. Esser, Unters. %. Gebet u. Gottesverehrung d. Neuplatoniker, Diss. Köln 1967).

Page 16 note 1 Pp. 64-5 Dübner.

Page 16 note 2 See the passages collected by R. Asmus, Julians Galiläerschrift (1904), p. 39.

Page 16 note 3 In Ale. 264. 7.

Page 16 note 4 V. Isid. p. 296. 1. Z.

Page 16 note 5 An echo of Republic 4966-7.

Page 16 note 6 V. Prodi 15.

Page 16 note 7 In Tim. m. 44. 6.

Page 16 note 8 V. Isid. p. 81. 1 Z.

Page 17 note 1 Cf. A. D. Nock, Sallustius (1926), p. xcviii, E. R. Dodds, Proclus: Elements of Theology2 (1963), p. 346, and see especially Marinus, V. Prodi 23.

Page 17 note 2 V. Isid. p. 187. 8 Z.

Page 17 note 3 V. Prodi 15.

Page 17 note 4 S. Sambursky, The Physical World ofLate Antiquity (1962), p. 156.

Page 17 note 5 Damascius, V. Isid. fr. 266, with Zintzen's note.

Page 17 note 6 R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1967), pp. 98-9—who oddly misses the classic example of the seven Athenians. There is also Oribasius who, when exiled after Julian's death, found honour at the court of'barbarian kings’ (Eunapius, V. Soph. 499).

Page 18 note 1 11. 30. 3, p. 80. 11 Keydell.

Page 18 note 2 V. Isid. pp. 83. 6, 236. 5, 245. 1, 250. 2 = 251. 13 (where Zintzen's note goes badly astray).

Page 19 note 1 P. 65. 30 Dübner.

Page 19 note 2 Not the only possible exemplar, of course: there was a regulär literature on exile and the philosopher. Nor was Epictetus alone in maintaining a school in exile. See R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1967), p. 310 n. 22.

Page 19 note 3 V. Prodi 15: on Proclus’ exile see Saffrey, Stud. Patr. ix (1966), 104-5.

Page 20 note 1 See H. Schenkl's editio maior (Teubner 1916), pp. cii f. It may be relevant to remark in connection with this role Epictetus plays in anti-Christian writings that the (later) contemptuous term ‘Galilaeans’ seems to originate with him (Diss. iv. 7. 6).

Page 20 note 2 P. 106 Dübner. For examples of applied to Christians by neoplatonists, see Nock, Sallustius, p. lxxxviii.

Page 20 note 3 Hymn vn. 48, with Wilamowitz, Sb. Berlin 1907, p. 274.

Page 20 note 4 V. Isid. p. 259. 3 Z.

Page 20 note 5 Ibid. fr. 124, p. 107.

Page 21 note 1 Ibid. p. 287. 9.

Page 21 note 2 Ibid. fr. 265.

Page 21 note 3 Cod. Just. I. 27. 1. 42: on the purchasing power of the solidus cf. Jones, Lat. Rom. Empire I (1964), 445 f. For the financial position of Alexandrian professors, see Westerink, Janus LI (1964), 176-7.

Page 22 note 1 Anth. Pal. VII. 553 (with ), Peek, Gr. Versinschr. 1. 1714; on the fringe of a sequence from Agathias’ Cycle, and in view of Agathias’ obvious interest in Damascius it could well be that he did include the poem in his collection.

Page 22 note 2 (1942), PP- 104-5: for the entry of this neoplatonic motif into Christian epitaphs see P. Courcelle, REA XLVI (1944), 66 f.

Page 22 note 3 Rev. Philos. (1896), p. 286.

Page 22 note 4 In de Caelo 26. 17 f.

Page 22 note 5 Saffrey, REG LXVII (1954), 402 n. 4.

Page 22 note 6 In addition to the works cited at p. 14 n. 4 above, see on this now. L. Tarän, Asclepius, On Nicomachus (1969) pp. 8 f. Note also the implication of Photius, Cod. 75 (1. 153. 25 f. Henry), to which M. Alain Segonds kindly referred me.

Page 23 note 1 Saffrey and Westerink, Thiol. Plat. I (1968), cli f.

Page 23 note 2 E.g. C. Diehl, Justinien (1901), pp. 562 f. See p. 29, note.

Page 23 note 3 Cf. the chronology suggested in JHS LXXXVI (1966), 17-19.

Page 23 note 4 Praechter, in PW (no. 10), m. A. 1. 204 f.

Page 24 note 1 Zeller, PAH. d. Griechen, in. 21 (1903), 909.

Page 24 note 2 Gudeman, PW ix. 2. 1791 (though Gudeman's chronology of Philoponus is 20 years out: cf. Stein, Bas-Empire 11, 627 n. 2).

Page 24 note 3 It should be noted that Bury's remark, ‘Simplicius was still writing.. .in the later years of Justinian’ (Lat. Rom. Empire n2 [1923], 371), though correct, is in fact based on a still older chronology of Philoponus (Clinton, Fasti Romani II, 329 f.), 40 years out the other way, which has him still alive for the Arab conquest in 617 (his dates are from ca. 490 to ca. 570 at latest). Page 24 note 4 Yet Paul's friend Agathias (as we have seen) was sympathetic to the philosophers: though there is little sign that he had any sympathy for neoplatonism (cf. Averil Cameron, Agathias [1969], pp. 100 f.).

Page 24 note 5 Cougny, Anth. Graec. App. III. 181.

Page 24 note 6 Though perhaps sound: Proclus called the Parmenides a (In Parm. VII. 1191. 34). For in the same sedes, AP IX. 507. 1 (Callimachus). ('destruction’), cf. et sim., seems an unlikely formation, and van Herwerden's (Studia Crit. in Epp. Gr. [1891], p. 66) rather feeble.

Page 25 note 1 Cf. Simplicius’ own reference to Philoponus attacking Aristotle ﹛In de An. 38 b. 44): .

Page 25 note 2 Note the clear distinction drawn by Marinus (V. Prodi 38): .

Page 25 note 3 ‘Ohne beschränkende Rücksicht auf ein Hörerpublikum', Praechter, PWin. A. I. 205.

Page 25 note 4 Marinus, V. Prodi 22.

Page 25 note 5 D. M. Metcalf, ‘The Slavonic Threat to Greece ca. 580: some evidence from Athens', Hesperia XXXI (1962), 134 f.

Page 25 note 6 Theodore of Tarsus: cf. A. Frantz, Dumbarton Oaks Papers xix (1965), 199 n. 78.

Page 25 note 7 Michael Acom., ed. S. Lampros 11, 44.

Page 26 note 1 ‘Justinian's View of Christianity and the Greek Classics', Anglican Theological Review XL (1958) 3-12 repeated, with no more regard for the facts, in numerous later books and articles, most recently in his L. T. Semple Lectures, Justinian and the Imperial Office (1968).

Page 26 note 2 I. P. Sheldon-Williams, in Cambr. Hist. of Later Greek Philosophy (1967), p. 484.

Page 26 note 3 Probably on his own behalf rather than to protect the school: cf. Westerink, Anon. Prolegomena, p. xiii.

Page 26 note 4 Westerink, loc. dt.

Page 26 note 5 Westerink, Mnemosyne IV. 14 (1961), p. 129.

Page 27 note 1 Westerink, Anon. Prolegomena, pp. xx-xxiv. For the debate between Philoponus and Simplicius on these two issues see the fasdnating last chapter of Sambursky's Physical World of Lau Antiquity (1962).

Page 27 note 2 Angl. Theol. Rev. (1958), p. 11.

Page 27 note 3 Westerink, Anon. Prolegomena, p. xv.

Page 27 note 4 PG LXXXV, 877 A.

Page 27 note 5 P. 296. 8 Z; cf. too §230 (p. 296. 5, where Isidore advises Hegias and the younger Syrianus

Page 28 note 1 Cf. R. Strömberg, ‘Damascius. His personality and signiiicance', Eranos xuv (1946), 175 f. Since then Westerink has advanced good grounds for ascribing some lectures on the Philebus to Damascius (see his excellent edition, Damascius: Lectures on the Philebus wrongly attributed to Olympiodorus, 1959), and is about to publish a new edition of his lectures on the Phaedo. Zintzen's edition of the V. Isidori (1967) is a great boon, but shaky on the historical side.

Page 28 note 2 It is true, as Buryremarked (Lat. Rom. Emp. ns, 370 n. 2), that Agathias, our only source for the list, does not actually say that all six were Damascius’ pupils, but we know that Simplicius was, and it seems most natural to assume (as all but Bury have) that the others were too—Damascius' band of . Where eise are pagans likely to have been teaching philosophy at this late hour? Only at Alexandria, it would seem, where they were evidently prepared to toe the line: Olympiodorus, for example, did not feel it necessary to join the expedition. There is also the point that all seven both went and returned together, as a party.

Page 28 note 3 Cf. Downey, Gaza in the early sixth Century (1963), pp. 107-8—a book which casts litde light on the intellectual side of life in Gaza. On one aspect see now N. G. Wilson, ‘ A chapter in the history of scholia', CQ n.s. xvn (1967), 252 f.

Page 29 note 1 Versions of this paper have been read at Yale, Harvard and Columbia Universities and the congress on neoplatonism held at Royaumont (near Paris) in June 1969 as well as before the Cambridge Philological Society. I am most grateful for helpful comments made on all those occasions. Since then it has been beneficially read by Mr Peter Brown, Father H. D. Saffrey and (as always) my wife Averil.