Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Origin of the Division Between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Late Ancient Platonism in Eighteenth-Century German Thought

  • 168 Accesses

Abstract

The division of Ancient Platonism into Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism is a fairly new one. The conceptual foundation of this division was cemented in Jacob Brucker’s pioneering Historia critica philosophiae (1742–1767). In the 1770s and 1780s, the term ‘Neoplatonism’ was coined on the basis of Brucker’s analysis. Three historiographical concepts were decisive to Brucker: ‘system of philosophy’, ‘eclecticism’ and ‘syncretism’. By means of these concepts, he characterized Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism as opposing philosophical movements, the former being a genuine form of Platonism, the latter a false form. It is argued in this chapter that the division is untenable and that we ought to abandon it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I should like to thank George Karamanolis and Troels Engberg-Petersen for their comments to parts of this chapter, which were presented at The Centre for Neoplatonic Virtue Ethics, University of Copenhagen on May 12, 2011. Likewise, I should like to thank Tue Søvsø, Giannis Stamatellos and Mark Rene Røge for the critical comments to early drafts of this chapter.

  2. 2.

    For the debate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on the historical identity of Potamo, see Matton 1992, 655–656. For the debate on this issue in recent scholarship, see Runia 1988 and Hadot 1990. For the Potamo of Alexandria mentioned by Laertius, see Hatzimichali 2011.

  3. 3.

    Brucker separated his accounts of Middle Platonism (Brucker 1742–1767, II: 162–188) and Neoplatonism (II: 189–462), emphasizing the fundamentally different philosophical methods employed within these two movements, as I explain below. Compare this with previous accounts of this period in ancient Platonism, which did not distinguish these periods, and which did not claim a radical shift in method: Alsted 1630, II: 2010–2022, did not articulate such a division. When Alsted accounted for the ‘Socratic school’, that is, Platonism—explicitly mentioning Platonists from the Old Academy (e.g. Speusippus), the New Academy (e.g. Carneades) and Neoplatonism (e.g. Porphyry and Plotinus)—he did not separate Neoplatonism from the tradition of Platonism (II: 2020). Horn 1655 characterized the Platonism of Plotinus and his adherents as a threat to Christian philosophy, but not as eclecticism (269–278). Vossius 1658 contended that Plotinus was ‘not foreign to’ (‘nec… alienus fuit’) the ‘elective sect’ (‘secta electiva’) of Potamo of Alexandria (mentioned in Laertius, Lives I.21) (II: 109). However, Vossius did not make much of this and characterized Plotinus as a successor of Platonic theology (I: 143). Jonsius 1659, 286–308, offered a historical account of Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Olympiodorus (495–570) without referring to the notion of eclecticism. Bayle 1722 (identical with the 1697 first edition), presented Plotinus as a “Platonic philosopher” (“Philosophe Platonicien”) without qualifying his philosophy as eclecticism (2454–2457). [Olearius ] 1711 had prepared this idea articulated in Brucker, Historia critica philosophiae, as I explain below. Walch 1726a, I: cols 594–596, referred approvingly to the account of ancient eclecticism found in [Olearius] 1711.

  4. 4.

    Neither of these two tasks has been undertaken in the following literature on ancient eclelcticism: Zeller 1919–1923, III.1: 547–564, follows to a considerable extent Brucker’s characterization of Neoplatonism as eclecticism. We find no examination of these two issues in Nieke 1972; Hager 1983; Holzhey 1983; Meinhardt 1984; Dreitzel 1991, 288–292; Schneider 1998. Franz 2003, 19–24, addresses Brucker’s juxtaposition of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, the latter explained as eclecticism; Franz seems to think that the division is justified (Franz 2003, 20–21). Donini 1988, 23–33, rightly objects to Zeller’s characterization of Neoplatonism as eclecticism, but does not extend his exploration to include Brucker.

  5. 5.

    Malusa 1993, 161–370.

  6. 6.

    For Stanley as a follower of Laertius, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 36.24–28.

  7. 7.

    For this normative issue, see Catana 2008, 147–191.

  8. 8.

    For these four features, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 3.6–16, 15.10–18, as pointed out in Catana 2008, 51.

  9. 9.

    For its employment on Thales, see Catana 2008, 64–72.

  10. 10.

    Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics I.3.

  11. 11.

    See Ritschl 1906 and Catana 2008.

  12. 12.

    Here I side with Hadot 1995, 76. For a discussion of the inadequacy of the historiographical concept in regard to philosophy produced before the seventeenth century, see Catana 2008, 35–145.

  13. 13.

    For Proclus as an example of an ancient syncretist, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 325.20–326.5. For a Renaissance Platonist and syncretist, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who (according to Brucker) was enslaved by traditions and thus burdened with their prejudices; see Brucker 1742–1767, IV: 59.38–60.4. For ancient eclecticism, see Nieke 1972; Donini 1988; Dillon 1988; Hatzimichali 2011. For eclecticism in Brucker and his contemporaries, see Albrecht 1994 and Schneider 1998. For ‘eclecticism’ versus ‘syncretism’ in Brucker, see Franz 2003, 21–22; Catana 2008, 11–34.

  14. 14.

    For Brucker on syncretism, see Catana 2008, 22–31. Diderot 1755, 270[a], retains this distinction.

  15. 15.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 444.20–23: “Non enim rationes dari, aut ex principiis deduci conclusiones, aut ullo modo veritatis characteres in ea. re detegi posse ab intellectu humano contendit, sed artifici tantum in hac arte pulchra credendum esse postulat.” Plotinus is depicted similarly; see II: 227.10–18.

  16. 16.

    Franz 2003, 22 n. 14.

  17. 17.

    For the ancient secta eclectia, i.e. Neoplatonism, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189–462. For Descartes as an eclectic philosopher, see V: 10.33–40; for Leibniz as an eclectic philosopher, see V: 11. Diderot 1755 similarly distinguishes between ancient eclecticism (270–283, 285–293) and sixteenth- and seventeenth-century eclecticism (271, 283–285). Diderot’s account of the system in ancient eclecticism, in Diderot 1755, 285–292, relies heavily on Brucker 1742–1767, II: 393–462, although he omits some of the orthodox parts, e.g. Brucker’s comparison of Christian Trinity with the Neoplatonic system (Brucker 1742–1767, II: 410–411). Diderot mentions Brucker by name in the entry (Diderot 1755, 273, 283, 292, 293). Like Brucker, Diderot 1755, 285–292, depicts ancient eclecticism as a multi-authored system of philosophy. Nevertheless, Diderot’s entry on eclecticism as a whole is not without philosophical and theological dissent from Brucker: he tends to compare eclecticism and Christianity from a non-confessional and critical position (e.g. Diderot 1755, 272), whereas Brucker looks at eclecticism, especially Platonism, from the view point of a Christian (Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–23.25). For Brucker’s influence on Diderot, please see Casini 1962.

  18. 18.

    For this background, see Albrecht 1994 and Schneider 1998.

  19. 19.

    Brucker 1742–1767, V: 3.22–4.11: “Nempe restituta tandem et post multas pugnas victoria potita est philosophia eclectica, eiecta et conculcata sectaria philosophandi ratione. Abiecto enim indigno humana ratione hoc iugo, et contemto servili auctoritatis et antiquitatis praeiudicio coeperunt magna quaedam et acuta ingenia non aliorum quidem placita, sed sua lumina consulere, principia vera, universalia, certa seligere, conclusiones iis inaedificare, et suae meditationis beneficio proprium atque domesticum sibi philosophiae systema condere; veritates autem per sectas omnes sparsas, separatas suisque dogmatibus iunctas in commodum aptumque systematis sui locum reponere: nihil vero probare et admittere, quod non rationis iudicio et veritatis evidentia sibi demonstratum certumque videretur esse.” This passage is also cited in Catana 2008, 24. Casini 1962, 259, n. 95, points out that Diderot’s entry ‘Éclectisme’ in his Encyclopédie is based on Brucker’s conception of ‘eclecticism’ as it appears in his Historia critica philosophiae.

  20. 20.

    For eclecticism as a positive ideal in contemporary Germany philosophy, see Albrecht 1994; Schneider 1998; Franz 2003, 21–22.

  21. 21.

    The first period is described in Brucker 1742–1767, I: 46–1357. For the second period, see II: 3–1069, and III: 3–912. For the third period, see IV: 3–785, and V: 3–923. For the first part of the second period, see II: 3–1069, and III: 3–240. For the second part of the second period, see III: 241–912.

  22. 22.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189–462

  23. 23.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 357.31–358.17. As Brucker makes clear here, he sides with Mosheim and Olearius in their anti-Platonic position. For Brucker’s apologetic motivation for the writing his history of philosophy and his view on Platonism, especially ancient and Renaissance Neoplatonism, as a threat to Christianity, see also I: 21.10–23.25.

  24. 24.

    [Olearius] 1711, 1206: “Fuere autem pr[a]eter istum Potamones alii duo … Alter ex Porphyrii fuit aequalibus, atque inter alios viros illustres eius aetatibus ab eo censetur in vita Plotini.”

  25. 25.

    [Olearius] 1711, 1209–1216.

  26. 26.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 190–191, 193, 202–204.

  27. 27.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 191.1–28, 321–330, 358.18–360.4, Brucker relies to a considerable extent on [Olearius] 1711. Olearius is not mentioned as the translator and author to the supplements, but Heumann 1715c, 331 n. z, Walch 1726a, I: col. 594, and Brucker 1742–1767, I: 36.29–31, provide this information. Brucker refers approvingly to Olearius in his section on Neoplatonism; see, for instance, Brucker 1742–1767, II: 190 n. c. [Olearius] 1711, 1220, mentions the Greek term for ‘systema’, but he does not relate it to ‘syncretismus’. In the same text, 1206, Olearius refers to Potamo of Alexandria (Laertius, Lives I.21) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.7) as examples of eclectics.

  28. 28.

    For Porphyry’s criticism of Christianity, see Barnes 1973.

  29. 29.

    For the emergence of the term ‘Neoplatonism’ in the 1770s and 1780s, see Hager 1983; Meinhardt 1984; Franz 2003.

  30. 30.

    Diderot 1755, 273–274. On 273[b], Diderot thus renders Porphyry’s Vita Plotini 9.11 as follows: “qu’il [Potamo] se plaisoit à entendre sur une philosophie dont il jettoit les fondemens, ou qui consiste à fondre plusieurs systèmes en un.”

  31. 31.

    Diderot 1755, 274–276.

  32. 32.

    Diderot 1755, 271[b]: “La philosophie éclectique, qu’on appelle aussi le ‘Platonisme réformé’ et la ‘philosophie alexandrine’, prit naissance à Alexandrie en Egypte, c’est-à-dire au centre des superstitions. Ce ne fut d’abord qu’un sincrétisme de pratiques religieuses, adopté par les prêtres de l’Egypte, qui n’étant pas moins crédules sous le regne de Tibere qu’au tems d’Hérodote, parce que le caractere d’esprit qu’on tient du climat change difficilement, avoient toûjours l’ambition de posséder le système d’extravagances le plus complet qu’il y eût en ce genre. Ce sincrétisme passa de-là dans la morale, et dans les autres parties de la philosophie. Les philosophes assez éclairés pour sentir le foible des différens systèmes anciens, mais trop timides pour les abandonner, s’occuperent seulement à les réformer sur les découvertes du jour, ou plûtôt à les défigurer sur les préjugés courans: c’est ce qu’on appella ‘platoniser’, ‘pythagoriser’, etc.”

  33. 33.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189.4–14: “Platonica, quam hucusque enarravimus, secta eclecticam genuit, monstrosi nominis generisque philosophiam, si nomen nativa significatione adhibeatur. Secta enim cum dicatur, quae unius potissimum philosophi rationem philosophandi, quodque sibi construxit, systema doctrinarum sequitur; eclectica vero methodus ea. sit, quae ex omnium sectarum placitis ea. sibi eligit, quae veritati propiora sunt, et propriis meditationibus iungi apta; exque iis proprium doctrinae excitat aedificium; clarum inde est, sectariam philosophiam adeo repugnare eclecticae, ut in unum redigi corpus nequeant. Nec si proprie appellationem accipiamus, eclectica philosophia nova est, sed antiquissima, maximisque viris sectarumque conditoribus omnibus usitatissima.” These opinions or truths are used as principles in their systems (189.28). Brucker regards this method as similar to the one used “by us”, including such figures as Leibniz (190.1–2).

  34. 34.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 190.33–193.13.

  35. 35.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 190.1–2.

  36. 36.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189.4–190.32.

  37. 37.

    Catana 2008, 35–113. Franz 2003, 21–22, does not distinguish between these two meanings of ‘eclecticism’.

  38. 38.

    For the anachronism of this concept in philosophy produced before the seventeenth century, see Catana 2008, 63–113. For Brucker’s dubious reconstruction of Thales’ philosophy, see 63–72.

  39. 39.

    Here I agree with Donini 1988, 21 n. 15. Walch 1726a, I: cols 593–594, had employed a conceptual scheme in which syncretism was the dialectical counterpart to eclecticism.

  40. 40.

    [Olearius ] 1711, 1218–1220.

  41. 41.

    E.g. Brucker 1742–1767, II: 318.33–319.3, 325.20–31, 330.30–39, 331.37–332.2, 363.31–366.24.

  42. 42.

    Brucker raises the same accusation against alleged syncretists like Pico and Ficino (Brucker 1742–1767, IV: 59.38–60.4), who picked up the “Alexandrian philosophy” (IV: 59.3). Brucker claims that Bruno’s undisciplined imagination and weak power of judgement led him to accept prejudices, turning his system into a ‘monster’ (monstrum) rather than an apt and rational system (V: 38.15–20). In fact, Bruno never intended to build a system of philosophy; see Catana 2008, 35–62.

  43. 43.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–23.11.

  44. 44.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 325.20–326.5, 336.19–34, 363.31–367.41.

  45. 45.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–31.

  46. 46.

    E.g. Brucker 1742–1767, II: 332.13–18, 336.17–19. 462.18–22.

  47. 47.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 366.25–367.3. Brucker may well reflect the medical criticism of melancholy, which had been advanced by Meric Casaubon, among others; see Heyd 1995, 44–92.

  48. 48.

    E.g. Iamblichus, De mysteriis III.25; Porphyry, De abstinentia III.24.

  49. 49.

    Ficino 2002 (De amore) VII.3–13. Bruno made this distinction in his typology of noetic ascent, the fifteen contractiones; see Catana 2005, 7–19.

  50. 50.

    For this tradition, see Nelson 1958.

  51. 51.

    For the precept, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 15.10–18. For its practice, see Catana 2008, 35–113.

  52. 52.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189–357.

  53. 53.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 357–392.

  54. 54.

    For the account of the system, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 393–462.

  55. 55.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 15.10–18. For a critical analysis of the Bruckerian interpretation of Proclus as a system builder, see Beierwaltes 1987.

  56. 56.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 393.1–395.27

  57. 57.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 395.28–410.15

  58. 58.

    For the One as the first principle in the eclectic system, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 395.35–400.34. Brucker, at least on some occasions, relies on the Greek-Latin 1580 edition of Plotinus’ Enneads: The quotation from Plotinus, Enneads III.8.9, in Brucker 1742–1767, II: 396 n. s, fits with this 1580 edition.

  59. 59.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 395.38–396.3: “Primum et genuinum totius systematis emanativi principium, nempe fontem fontium omnium, omnibus priorem innuit Plotinus, sicque clavem porrigit, qua totum systematis aedificium referari potest.”

  60. 60.

    Compare with Aristotle, Metaphysics V.1.

  61. 61.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 396.31–33.

  62. 62.

    For Intellect, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 398.12–400.34.

  63. 63.

    For Soul, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 398.12–399.15, 400.35–405.26.

  64. 64.

    For World Soul as the third principle, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 405.27–28. For the World Soul and its vexed relationship to the Christian Trinity, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 405.28–411.17.

  65. 65.

    See Chap. 4 below.

  66. 66.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 363.31–366.24.

  67. 67.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 366.25–367.41.

  68. 68.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–31.

  69. 69.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 395.28–396.10, 407.5–40. Diderot 1755, 286, retains this characterization of Plotinus’ philosophy.

  70. 70.

    Bayle 1722, III: 2455 n. D, makes the startling comment that Plotinus’ philosophy resembles the monistic philosophy of Spinoza.

  71. 71.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 410.16–411.17, distinguishes emphatically between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Neoplatonic ontological hierarchy with the One, Intellect and Soul or World Soul.

  72. 72.

    Brucker argues against this identification in Brucker 1742–1767, II: 398.21–399.15, 406.33–411.17. Similarly, in his account of Plato, Brucker warns against this conflation. For an equation of the World Soul in Plato and the Holy Spirit in Christianity, see I: 703.5–29, 704.30–706.11. For the unsatisfactory systematization produced by the alleged, Neoplatonic reading of Plato, see also I: 703.26–29.

  73. 73.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–23.25.

  74. 74.

    For psychology and cosmology, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 411.18–431.19.

  75. 75.

    For theology, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 431.20–457.33.

  76. 76.

    For moral philosophy, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 457.34–462.22.

  77. 77.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 419.14–17.

  78. 78.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 416 n. p.

  79. 79.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 417 n. w.

  80. 80.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 462.15–22.

  81. 81.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 462.2–22. Similarly, Brucker condemns Plotinus, and other Neoplatonic philosophers infected with Platonic enthusiasm, from the ‘Christian republic’; see II: 231.16–19.

  82. 82.

    Hager 1983; Meinhardt 1984.

  83. 83.

    Büsching 1772–1774, II: 471 spoke of the ‘Ursprung der eklektischen Philosophie der neuern Platoniker’. In II: 472, Büsching distinguished genuine ancient Platonism from Neoplatonism: “Also waren und hieβen sie [Alexandrian philosophers, mentioned II: 471–472], Eklektiker. Jedoch sie wolten insonderheit für Anhänger des Plato angesehen seyn, dessen Lehrsätze von Gott, der Seele und Welt, ihnen besser gefielen, als was andere Philosophen davon gelehret hatten, und lieβen sich also auch gern Platoniker nennen. Die Nachwelt aber hat sie zum Unterschied von den alten und ächten Platonikern, die neuen Platoniker genannt. Man thut ihnen nicht unrecht, wenn man sie für Enthusiasten ausgiebt, denn ihr System und desselben Ausschmüchung, bezeuget es, dass sie dergleichen gewesen.” For the theological and medical accusation against enthusiasts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see Heyd 1995, 44–92.

  84. 84.

    The following historians of philosophy can be seen in the historiographical tradition established by Brucker: Meiners 1782 (ignored by Meinhardt 1984) spoke of Neoplatonism (“Neu-Platonisches Philosophie”, 6, 7, 9 et passim), or the Neoplatonists (“neuen Platonikern”, 8, or “neuern Platonikern”, 9, et passim). He characterized these Neoplatonists as eclectics, led by Potamo and Ammonius, who combined different philosophical systems (9–16; “System’” is mentioned on 10, 13, 14, 16). Eberhard 1788, 211–221, picks up the main features of this tradition, reusing the term “Neoplatonic” (“neu-platonischen”, 211; or “Neuplatonische”, e.g. 212). He characterizes the Neoplatonic philosophy as “eclectic” “eclectischen”, 212), and he brings forward Brucker’s contention that the Alexandrian philosophers construed a system (213). Eberhard refers approvingly to Brucker’s Historia critica philosophiae (219), and he regards Justinian’s closure of Plato’s Academy as an adequate ending of “heathen’” (“heidnische”), that is, Hellenic philosophy, after the rise of Christianity (222). Fülleborn 1793, 70–85, uses the term “Neoplatonism” and its cognates as a well-established term, largely relying on the tradition going back to Brucker and Meiners. Buhle 1796–1804, IV, refers to Brucker’s Historia critica philosophiae (181): Buhle uses the term “Neoplatonism” and its cognates (e.g. 211), and he reports several of features that had become standard in the interpretation of Neoplatonism (183–215). However, Buhle is among the first to reject Mosheim’s theological and orthodox Protestant criticism of Neoplatonism (215–9).

  85. 85.

    [Mill] 1809, 191–200, 211 [[Mill] 2001, 152–166, 179], uses the phrase ‘Alexandrian’ for ancient Neoplatonic philosophers, typically with strong negative connotations. For Mill’s view on Neoplatonism, see Chap. 5 below.

  86. 86.

    We find an exposition of Neoplatonism in Hegel 1959, XIX: 3–96. For non-Platonic elements in Neoplatonism, see XIX: 10, 40. For Hegel’s rejection of Alexandrian philosophy as eclectic, see XIX: 33. For Alexandrian philosophy (including Plotinus’) as a synthesis of previous systems, see XIX: 33. The last-mentioned claim should be seen on the background of Hegel’s general view on the history of philosophy as a series of philosophical systems which are ‘aufgehoben’ into subsequent ones; see XVII: 35–80.

  87. 87.

    Horn 2010, 138. On 138–139, Horn identifies Schleiermacher’s Plato interpretation of 1804 as the first attack on the so-called Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato that had any substantial influence upon German scholarship. I think it would be reasonable to pay attention to the anti-Platonic campaign—attacking Neoplatonists on theological, philosophical, philological and medical grounds— that emanated from Leipzig publishers between 1715 and 1744, counting figures like Olearius, Heumann, Hansch, Mosheim, and Brucker; the latter certainly did have a considerable influence on German scholarship, and on the history of philosophy in particular. Remarkably, this widespread anti-Platonic campaign has largely been ignored among historians of philosophy working on the eighteenth century.

  88. 88.

    For Zeller’s use of the historiographical concept eclecticism in regard to Neoplatonism, see Zeller 1919–1923, III.1: 547–564. See also the critical discussion of Zeller on this point in Donini 1998 and Beierwaltes 1989, 1182–1191. Compare with Horn 2010, 142, who praises Zeller’s interpretation of Neoplatonism as adequate and nuanced.

  89. 89.

    To Laertius, an “eclectic school” makes selections from the doctrines of existing sects (e.g. Lives I.21). To Brucker, “eclecticism” typically denotes an internally coherent complex of doctrines derived from one or a few general theories, or principles, which have been chosen among existing philosophical principles. To Zeller, “eclecticism” merely means a random collection of doctrines from the philosophical tradition.

  90. 90.

    Compare my analysis with Hager 1983, 101, claiming that the term “Neoplatonism” is justified.

  91. 91.

    Plato, Theaetetus 176a-b; Alcinous, Didaskalikos 28; Plotinus, Enneads I.2.1. For this instance of continuity, see Annas 1999, 52–69. On 53, Annas points out that this idea in the Theaetetus 176a-b and Didaskalikos 28 has often been ignored by Plato scholars. For this theme in Plato, see also Sedley 1999.

  92. 92.

    For recent studies in Neoplatonic natural philosophy, see Wilberding 2006; Chiaradonna and Trabattoni 2009. Similarly, for political philosophy, see O’Meara 2003.

  93. 93.

    For Plotinus and the Presocratics, see Stamatellos 2007.

  94. 94.

    Compare with Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189.4–14.

  95. 95.

    For this tendency, see also Meiners 1782, 10, who claims that Alexandrian philosophers sought to harmonize different philosophical schools, especially the Platonic and the Aristotelian.

  96. 96.

    For Plotinus’ use of Presocratic thinkers, see Stamatellos 2007.

  97. 97.

    See for instance the exposition of Proclus method in Brucker 1742–1767, II: 325.20–31, 333.12–23, 359.30–37.

  98. 98.

    E.g. Tennemann 1798–1819, VI: 10, 17, juxtaposes the Neoplatonists’ allegorical interpretation of Plato with a proper systematic exposition.

  99. 99.

    E.g. Plato, Gorgias 493a-c.

  100. 100.

    Proclus, In Timaeum I.68.15–22. I owe this reference to Karamanolis. For hermeneutic techniques among Neoplatonists, see Tarrant 2000.

  101. 101.

    Sorabji 1990; Karamanolis 2006.

  102. 102.

    Brucker 1742–1767, IV: 59.38–60.4, rejects Renaissance Neoplatonism as syncretism.

  103. 103.

    For Brucker’s influence, see Catana 2008, 193–282. For one late follower of Brucker’s precepts about history of philosophy as the history of philosophical systems, see Copleston 1985, I.

  104. 104.

    For this Renaissance tradition, see Walker 1972. For Brucker’s re-orientation, see Blackwell 1997.

  105. 105.

    Compare with Bernal 1985, I: 3–4 et passim, who claims that romanticism introduced a euro-centric model. For discussions of non-Hellenic origins to Hellenic philosophy, see also contributions in Isis 83 (1992).

  106. 106.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–31.

  107. 107.

    For this rediscovery, see Annas 1999, 52–71; Karamanolis 2004.

  108. 108.

    For Plato’s philosophy, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 627–728. For an analysis of Brucker’s interpretation of Plato, see Catana 2008, 73–94.

  109. 109.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 669.13–23: “Respiciemus tamen ad eos quoque ex veteribus, qui detestabili syncretismi peste non tantopere, ut Plotini schola, infecti, aliquanto purius Platonis dogmata enarravisse censendi sunt. Inter quos sine controversia Ciceroni primus locus debetur, qui in Academicis quaestionibush eleganti compendio Platonis decreta, qualia in Academia docebantur, purissimo sermonis genere enarravit. Huic merito addimus Apuleiumi atque Alcinoum,k qui, ut omnium optime ad ordinem nexumque philosophiae Platonicae attendit, ita dux erit nobis in itinere, quo ipsius Platonis, nullum philosophiae suae ordinem, systema nullum in scriptis suis sequentis, sed cuncta in dialogis dispersa ratione enarrantis, doctrinas ex eius colloquiis eruemus.” Note h reads: “Lib. I. c. 5. seqq.” (= Cicero, Academica I vff., ed. Reid). Note. i reads: “Libris tribus, de dogmate Platonis, quorum primis de philosophia naturali, secundus de morali, tertius de rationali agit.” (= Apuleius, De Platone et eius dogmate I-II, ed. Beaujeu. Apuleius’ work only contains the first two books, not a third on logic, as Brucker says; see Beaujeu, ‘Introduction’, 49, 52). Note k reads: “In delineatione doctrinae Platonis, quam quoque historiae philosophicae suae inservit Stanlei. P. IV. p. 326.’” (= Alcinous, Doctrinae Platonis lineamenta autore Alcinoo, in Stanley, Historia philosopiae vitas, opiniones, resque gestas et dicta, 326–357.)

  110. 110.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 677.11–16: “Certe Platonici ipsi eclecticae scholae priores nunquam aliter magistrum intellexerunt, nec Cicero,ss Apuleius,t Alcinous,u et ipse quoque, his iunior Chalcidiusw tradiderunt, quam, admisisse Platonem principia prima duo, Deum et materiam, hanc vero esse, ut Apuleii verbis utamur, improcreabilem incorruptamque: hisque demum adiici ideam.” Note ss reads “Q. q. Academ. l. I. c. 6” (= Cicero, Academica I vi 22–24, ed. Reid, 121–126). Note t reads: “De dog. Plat. l. I. p. m. 284” (= Apuleius, De Platone et eius dogmate I v 190, ed. Beaujeu, 63). Note n. u reads: “c. 12. Stanlei. p. 338” (= Alcinous, Doctrinae Platonis lineamenta autore Alcinoo xii, 338). Note w reads: “Opp. p. 3. Comm. in Tim. c. 13. § 305” (=?).

  111. 111.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 669.13–23.

  112. 112.

    Compare with Tigerstedt 1974, 1977, who does not examine the meaning of Brucker’s concept system of philosophy, and who therefore fails to differentiate Brucker’s introduction of this historiographical systematization from the systematizations of the Middle Platonists. Tigerstedt 1974, 68, thus ignores the fact that Brucker imposed this category on Plato, and that it was foreign to the Neoplatonists: “But though Tennemann’s Kantian interpretation of Plato did not carry conviction, he nevertheless bequeathed two ideas of great importance to the Platonic scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The first was the belief that Plato had a philosophic system. This assumption was, of course, no invention of Tennemann’s, for it was more or less shared by all earlier Platonists, save the New Academy, and can be traced back to Plato’s immediate successors in the Old Academy, Speusippus and Xenocrates, though it culminated in the Neoplatonists.” Compare also with Burnyeat 2001a, 106, who states: “Alcinous’ Plato is still a systematic thinker, albeit in a Hellenistic rather than NeoPlatonic mould”. If “systematic” implies that Alcinous’ professed a system in the Bruckerian sense of the word, I disagree. I also disagree with Franz 2003, 24, who argues that Brucker re-introduced Plato’s system as it had been explained among these Middle Platonists. For a full analysis of Brucker’s interpretation of Plato, see Catana 2008, 73–94, 109–113. Kant 1998, A316/B372, paraphrases Brucker’s account of Plato (Brucker 1742–1767, I: 726–727?), referring explicitly to Brucker. For Kant’s use of Brucker’s Plato interpretation, see Mollowitz 1935; Fistioc 2002, 15–36; Serck-Hanssen and Emilsson 2010.

  113. 113.

    For the view that Plato’s dualistic system was perverted into an emanative system by Neoplatonists, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 364.4–9: “Quod ut facilius fieret, relicto, quod Plato assumerat, systemate dualistico, emanativum ab iis ex philosophia Orientali revocatum et admissum, et per varios emanationum fontes, gradus, naturas, modos, classes, totus rerum et visibilium et invisibilium orbis, maxime vero infinita naturarum spiritualium et inteligibilium series deducta est.” Rather inconsistently, Brucker (I: 695.30–37), contends that Plato’s doctrine of ideas is a third principle in his system, on which his theology, metaphysics, and his natural and moral philosophy hinge. Here Brucker seems to contradict his claim about a dualistic system in Plato. This distance between Plato’s dualistic system of philosophy and the Neoplatonic emanative system of philosophy is underlined by Brucker’s claim that the Neoplatonic eclecticism originated from Egypt, first of all Alexandria, not from Greece; see II: 190–193.

  114. 114.

    Hence, I tend to agree with Gerson 2010, 3–4. For a discussion of his view, see Remes and Slaveva-Griffin 2014, 3–5. For further discussion of the development of ancient Platonism, see Dillon 1977, 1982; Opsomer 2007, especially 285. I owe the two last references to George Boys-Stones.

References

  • Albrecht, Michael. 1994. Eklektik. Eine Begriffsgeschichte mit Hinweisen auf die Philosophie- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcinous. 1711. Doctrinae Platonis lineamenta autore Alcinoo, in Stanley, Historia philosophiae (1711), 326–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcinous. 1990. Didaskalikos [∆ιδασκαλικός], in Alcinous, Enseignement des doctrines de Platon, Greek and French text, intro., ed. and commentary J. Whittaker, trans. P. Louis. Paris. Whittaker uses the name Alcinoos, not Alcinous, for the author of this work. I cite, nevertheless, this Greek edition as “Alcinous, Didaskalikos”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alsted, Johann Heinrich. 1630. Encyclopaedia septem tomis distincta, 7 books in 2 vols. Herborn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, Julia. 1999. Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apuleius. 1973. De Platone et eius dogmate, Latin text with French translation, ed., trans. and notes J. Beaujeu, in Apuleius, Opuscules philosophiques (Du dieu de Socrate, Platon et sa doctrine, Du monde) et fragments, 60–107. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. 1973. Porphyry against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments. Journal of Theological Studies 24: 424–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayle, Pierre. 1722. Plotin. In P. Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, 2nd rev. ed., 3 vols with continuous pagination. Rotterdam, 1722, III: 2454–2457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaujeu, Jean. 1973. Introduction. In Apuleius. 1973. De Platone et eius dogmate, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierwaltes, Werner. 1987. Proklos—ein ‘systematischer’ Philosoph? In Proclus. Lecteur et interprete des Anciens, colloques internationzux du CNRS, ed. J. Pepin and H. D. Saffrey, 351–368. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierwaltes, Werner. 1989. Der Neuplatonismus in Eduard Zellers Philosophie der Griechen. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, series III, 19.3: 1179–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, Martin. 1985. Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, 2 vols. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, Constance. 1997. Thales philosophus: The Beginning of Philosophy as a Discipline. In History and the Disciplines. The Reclassification of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe, ed. Donald R. Kelly, 61–82. Rochester, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brucker, Johann Jacob. 1742–1767. Historia critica philosophiae a mundi incunabulis ad nostram usque aetatem deducta, 5 vols. Leipzig, 1742–1744. Appendix, 1 vol., Leipzig, 1767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhle, Johann Gottlieb. 1796–1804. Lehrbuch der Philosophie und einer kritischen Literatur derselben, 8 vols. Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, Myles F. 2001a. James Mill on Thomas Taylor’s Plato: Introduction. Apeiron 34.2: 101–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, Myles F. 2001b. What was “the Common Arrangement”? An Inquiry into John Stuart Mill’s Boyhood Reading of Plato. Apeiron 34.1: 51–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büsching, Anton Friedrich. 1772–1774. Grundriss einer Geschichte der Philosophie und einiger wichtigen Lehrsätze derselben, 2 vols with continuous pagination. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casaubon, Meric. 1656. A Treatise Concerning Enthusiasme, as It Is an Effect of Nature: But Is Mistaken by Many for Either Divine Inspiration, or Diabolicall Possession. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini, Paolo. 1962. Diderot “philosophe”. Bari.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catana, Leo. 2005. The Concept of Contraction in Giordano Bruno’s Philosophy. Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catana, Leo. 2008. The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy’: Its Origin, Nature, Influence and Legitimacy. Leiden and Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiaradonna, Riccardo, and Franco Trabattoni (eds). 2009. Physics and Philosophy of Nature in Greek Neoplatonism. Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero. 1996. Academica, ed., introduction and notes by J. S. Reid. London, 1885. Reprint: Hildesheim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copleston, Frederick. 1985. Introduction. In F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy [1946–1976], 9 vols, I: 2–9. Reprint: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diderot, Denis. 1755. Eclectisme. In Encyclopedie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des meétiers, eds D. Diderot and M. d’Alembert, vol. 5, 270–293. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, John. 1977. The Middle Platonists, a study of Platonism from 80 B.C. to A. D. 220. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, John. 1982. Self-Definition in Later Platonism. In Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, 3 vols, eds B. E. Meyer and E. P. Sanders. Vol. III: Self-Definition in the Greco-Jewish World, 60–75. London and Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, John. 1988. “Orthodoxy” and “Eclecticism”: Middle Platonists and Neo-Pythagoreans. In The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, eds J. M. Dillon and A. A. Long, 103–125. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donini, Pierluigi. 1988. The History of the Concept of Eclecticism. In The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek philosophy, eds J. M. Dillon and A. A. Long, 15–33. Berkeley and Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreitzel, Horst. 1991. Zur Entwicklung und Eigenart der “eklektischen” Philosophie. Zeitscrift für historische Forschung 18: 281–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, Johann August. 1788. Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie zum Gebrauch academischer Vorlesungen. Halle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficino, Marsilio. 2002. Commentarium in Convivium Platonis, De amore, in Ficino, Commentaire sur Commentaire sur Le Banquet de Platon, De l’amour, Latin text and French trans. P. Laurens. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fistioc, Mihaela. 2002. The Beautiful Shape of the Good: Platonic and Pythagorean Themes in Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, Michael. 2003. Der Neuplatonismus in den philosophiehistorischen Arbeiten der zweite Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts. In Platonismus im Idealismus. Die platonische Tradition in der klassischen Philosophie, eds B. Mojsisch and O. F. Summerell, 19–31. Munich and Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fülleborn, Georg Gustav. 1793. Neuplatonische Philosophie. In G. G. Fülleborn, Beyträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie, 12 vols, III [1793], 70–85. Züllichau and Freystadt, 1791–1799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, Lloyd P. 2010. General Introduction. In The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, ed. L. P. Gerson, 2 vols with continuous pagination, I: 1–10. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadot, I. 1990. Du bon et du mauvais usage du terme “éclectisme” dans l’histoire de la philosophie antique. In Herméneutique et ontologie. Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Aubenque, ΦPΟΝΙΜΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ, eds R. Brague and J.-F. Courtine, 147–162. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadot, Pierre. 1995. Philosophy as a Way of Life. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, ed. and intro. A. I. Davidson, Eng. trans. M. Chase. Oxford and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hager, Fritz-Peter. 1983. Zur Geschichte, Problematik und Bedeutung des Begriffes “Neuplatonismus”. Diotima 11: 98–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansch, Michael Gottlieb. 1716. Diatriba de enthusiasmo platonico, preface G. W. Leibniz. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzimichali, Myrto. 2011. Potamo of Alexandria and the Emergence of Eclecticism in Late Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1959. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, 3 vols., ed. L. Michelet [1st ed. 1833–1836], in G. W. F. Hegel, Sämtliche Werke. Jubiläumsausgabe in zwanzig Bänden, ed. H. Glockner, vol. XVII–XX. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, Christoph August. 1715a. Vorbericht. Acta philosophorum 1.1: A2r–A5r.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, Christoph August. 1715b. VI. Das Leben Plotini vom Porphyrio beschrieben. Acta philosophorum 1.1: 138–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, Christoph August. 1715c. V. Diogenes Laertius De vitis philosophorum. Acta philosophorum 1.2: 321–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyd, Michael. 1995. “Be Sober and Reasonable”. The Critique of Enthusiasm in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries. Leiden, New York and Köln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holzhey, Helmut. 1983. Philosophie als Eklektik. Studia Leibnitiana 15: 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Christoph. 2010. Eduard Zeller und der Neuplatonismus. In Eduard Zeller. Philosophie- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. G. Hartung, 137–151. Berlin and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Georg. 1655. Historiae philosophicae libri septem: Quibus de origine, successione, sectis & vita philosophorum ab orbe condito ad nostram aetatem agitur. Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsius, Johann. 1659. De scriptoribus historiae philosophicae libri. Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, ed. J. Timmermann. Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamanolis, George. 2004. Transformations of Plato’s Ethics: Platonist Interpretations of Plato’s Ethics from Antiochus to Porphyry. Rhizai 1: 73–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamanolis, George. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malusa, Luciano. 1993. The First General Histories of Philosophy in England and the Low Countries. In Models of the History of Philosophy: From Its Origins in the Renaissance to the ‘Historia Philosophica’, eds G. Santinello et al., 161–370. Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matton, Sylvain. 1992. Regard sur la fortune de la Vie de Plotin du XVIe au XIXe siècle. In Porphyry, La vie de Plotin, ed. L. Brisson et al., 2 vols, II: 639–722. Paris, 1982–1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiners, Christoph. 1782. Beytrag zur Geschichte der Denkart der ersten Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt, in einigen Betrachtungen über die Neu-Platonische Philosophie. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiners, Christoph. 1786. Grundriss der Geschichte der Weltweisheit. Lemgo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinhardt, Helmuth. 1984. Neuplatonismus. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter, 13 vols, VI (1984): cols 754–756. Basel and Stuttgart, 1971–2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Mill, James.] 1804/2001. The Works of Plato. The Literary Journal 3.8 and 3.10: 449–461. I cite this article in the edition by M. Burnyeat in Apeiron 34.2 (2001): 111–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Mill, James.] 1809. The Works of Plato. Edinburgh Review 14: 187–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Mill, James.] 2001. The Works of Plato. First printed in Edinburgh Review 14 (1809): 187–211, ed. with notes and trans. by M. Burnyeat: Apeiron 34.2 (2001): 149–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollowitz, Gerhard. 1935. Kants Platoauffassung. Kant-Studien 40.1–2: 13–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, John Charles. 1958. Renaissance Theory of Love. The Context of Giordano Bruno’s Eroici furori. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieke, Werner. 1972. Eklektizismus. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J. Ritter, 13 vols, II (1972): cols 432–433. Basel and Stuttgart, 1971–2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Olearius, Gottfried.] 1711. De secta eclectica. In T. Stanley, Historia philosophiae vitas, opiniones, resque gestas et dicta, Latin translation by G. Olearius?, 1205–1222. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • [Olearius, Gottfried.] 1731. De secta eclectica. In T. Stanley, Historia philosophiae vitas, opiniones, resque gestas et dicta, 343–361. Venice.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Meara, Dominique J. 2003. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opsomer, Jan. 2007. The Place of Plutarch in the History of Platonism. In Plutarco e la cultura della sua etá (Atti del X Convegno plutarcheo), eds P. V. Cacciatore and F. Ferrari, 283–309. Naples.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotinus. 1580. Operum philosophicorum omnium libri LIV in sex enneades distributi, Greek and Latin text, ed., tr. and comm. M. Ficino. Basel, 1580. Anastatic reprint with an intro. S. Toussaint: Enghien-les-Bains, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotinus. 1835. Opera omnia. Porphyrii Liber de vita Plotini cum Marsilii Ficini commentariis et eiusdem interpretatione castigata, ed. F. Creuzer, annotations to the text recorded by D. Wyttenbach, critical apparatus provided by G. H. Moser, 3 vols. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotinus. 1951–1973. Opera, eds P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, 3 vols. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotinus. 1964–1982. Opera, eds P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, 3 vols. Oxford. Unless otherwise indicated, I refer to this edition of the Enneads.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 1580. Plotini vita, eiusque librorum series, in Plotinus. Operum philosophicorum omnium libri LIV in sex enneades distributi. Greek and Latin text. Ed., Latin trans. and comm. M. Ficino. Basel, 1580. Facsimile reprint with intro. S. Toussaint, β1r-γ4r. Enghien-les-Bains, 2008. I cite this edition as “Porphyry, Plotini vita (1580)”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 1711. Plotini vita, eiusque librorum series. Latin trans. M. Ficino, notes by J. A. Fabricius, in Bibliotheca graeca, ed. J. A. Fabricius, 14 vols, IV (1711): 91–147. Hamburg, 1708–1728. I cite this edition as “Porphyry, Plotini vita (1711).”

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 1823. Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligible Natures [= Sententiae], in Porphyry, Select Works, trans. T. Taylor, 201–238. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 1964. Vita Plotini, in Plotinus, Opera, eds P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, 3 vols, I (1964): 1–38. Oxford, 1964–1982. I cite this edition unless otherwise indicated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 1992. La vie de Plotin, Greek and French text, and notes, in Porphyre, La vie de Plotin, ed. L. Brisson et al., 2 vols, II: 131–229. Paris, 1982–1992. I cite this edition as “Porphyry, La vie de Plotin”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porphyry. 2005. Sentences, 2 vols. Greek, French and English text, intro. and comm. L. Brisson, French trans. L. Brisson, Eng. trans. J. Dillon. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remes, Pauliina, and Svetla Slaveva-Griffin. 2014. Introduction: Neoplatonism Today. In The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism, eds P. Remes and S. Slaveva-Griffin, 1–12. New York and Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritschl, Otto. 1906. System und systematische Methode in der Geschichte des wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauchs und der philosophischen Methodologie. Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runia, David T. 1988. Philosophical Heresiography: Evidence in two Ephesian Inscriptions. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 72: 241–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Ulrich Johannes. 1998. Das Eklektizismus-Problem in der Philosophiegeschichte. In Jacob Brucker (1696–1770) Philosoph und Historiker der europäischen Aufklärung, eds W. Schmidt-Biggemann and T. Stammen, 135–158. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedley, David. 1999. The Ideal of Godlikeness. In Plato 2: Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul, ed. G. Fine, 309–328. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serck-Hanssen, Camilla, and Eyjólfur K. Emilsson. 2010. Kant and Plato. SATS 5.1: 71–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorabji, Richard. 1990. Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their Influence. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatellos, Giannis. 2007. Plotinus and the Presocratics. A Philosophical Study of Presocratic Influence in Plotinus’ Enneads. Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarrant, Harold. 2000. Plato’s First Interpreters. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennemann, Wilhelm Gottlieb. 1798–1819. Geschichte der Philosophie, 12 vols. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tigerstedt, Eugene Napoleon. 1974. The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato. An Outline and some Observations. Helsinki and Helsingfors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tigerstedt, Eugene Napoleon. 1977. Interpreting Plato. Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vossius, Gerhard Johann. 1658. De philosophia et philosophorum sectis, Libri II. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walch, Johann Georg. 1726a. Philosophisches Lexicon. 2 vols with continuous pagination. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walch, Johann Georg. 1726b. Freyheyt zu gedencken. In Walch, Philosophisches Lexicon, 2 vols with continuous pagination, I: 1004–1029. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Daniel Pickering. 1972. The Ancient Theology. Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilberding, James. 2006. Plotinus’ Cosmology. A Study of Ennead II.i (40). Text, trans. and comm. J. Wilberding. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeller, Eduard. 1919–1923. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, 6th ed., 3 vols in 6 parts. Leipzig: Reprint: Darmstadt, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Leo Catana

Authors
  1. Leo Catana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Catana, L. (2019). The Origin of the Division Between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. In: Late Ancient Platonism in Eighteenth-Century German Thought. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 227. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20511-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation