Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thomas Taylor’s Dissent from Some Eighteenth-Century Views on Platonic Philosophy: The Ethical and Theological Context

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

  • 156 Accesses

Abstract

Thomas Taylor’s (1758–1835) interpretation of Plato’s works in 1804 was condemned as guilty by association immediately after its publication. Taylor’s 1804 and 1809 reviewer thus made a hasty generalisation in which the qualities of Neoplatonism, assumed to be negative, were transferred to Taylor’s own interpretation, which made use of Neoplatonist thinkers. For this reason, Taylor has typically been marginalised as an interpreter of Plato. The anonymous reviewer is now believed to be the Utilitarian James Mill (1773–1836). This chapter does not deny the association between Taylor and Neoplatonism. Instead, it examines the historical and historiographical reasons for the reviewer’s assumption that Neoplatonic readings of Plato are erroneous by definition. In particular, it argues that the reviewer relied on, and tacitly accepted, ethical and theological premises going back to the historiography of philosophy developed by Jacob Brucker in his Historia critica philosophiae (1742–1744). These premises were an integral part of Brucker’s Lutheran religiosity and thus theologically and ethically biased. If these premises are identified, articulated and discussed critically, it becomes less obvious that the reviewer was justified in his assumption that the Neoplatonic reading was erroneous by definition.

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.

    This 1804 publication has been reprinted by the Prometheus Trust, 1995–1996. In this recent publication we find orthographic changes, corrections of grammatical errors and spelling, and some re-arrangement of the notes. Below I refer to the original 1804 publication and to this reprint; I refer to the latter in square brackets. This applies to the texts of Plato and to the texts of Taylor in these two publications. For Taylor’s life and work, see Raine 1969. For his influence upon the English romantic movement, see Raine 1968.

  2. 2.

    Taylor 1804, lxxxiv [Taylor 1995, 59].

  3. 3.

    Taylor 1804, iii [Taylor 1995, 1]. The quotation is from Hierocles, In aureum carmen. It may be Taylor’s own English translation from the Greek-Latin 1709 edition by Needham; Taylor owned a copy of this edition in his private library: See Catalogue 1836, 8 n. 172. I am grateful to Tim Addey for providing this auction catalogue and for his helpful comments.

  4. 4.

    Taylor 1804 [Taylor 1995] does not use the term ‘Neoplatonism’ / ‘Neoplatonist’ at all. For the emergence of the term ‘Neoplatonism’ in the 1770s and 1780s, see Chap. 3 above.

  5. 5.

    Taylor 1804 [Taylor 1995] avoids the terms “Alexandrian philosophy” and “Alexandrians” for Neoplatonic philosophy and Neoplatonists; when he uses the term “Alexandrian” to refer to Neoplatonism, he does so in order to point out an interpretation of Neoplatonism that was unfavourable and unfair in his eyes, as in the case of Warburton: E.g. Taylor 1804, xci [Taylor 1995, 63]. As we have seen, Taylor’s critic refers frequently to the “Alexandrians”; see [Mill] 1809, 191–200, 211 [[Mill] 2001, 152–166, 179].

  6. 6.

    Taylor 1804 does not use these two terms at all. They are used in [Mill] 1809, 195, 196 [Mill] 2001, 158, 160].

  7. 7.

    Rigg 1898, 469.

  8. 8.

    For this development in the eighteenth century, see Chaps. 3 and 4 above.

  9. 9.

    Taylor 1804, lxxxvii [Taylor 1995, 61].

  10. 10.

    Taylor 1804, lxxxvii [Taylor 1995, 61]. The Sallust mentioned here is not the historian but the philosopher. In 1793, Taylor had published an English translation of a work by Sallust, namely On the Gods and the World.

  11. 11.

    Taylor 1804, xci-xcii [Taylor 1995, 63–64].

  12. 12.

    For Taylor’s influence upon the Platonism of the poet Shelley, see Notopoulos 1936. Evans 1940, 1070–1072, ignores Brucker’s historiography of Plato as a background to Taylor and the 1804 and 1809 reviews. Evans 1943, 107, points out Taylor’s significance for literary romanticism, but without comparing his Plato interpretation with those of the eighteenth century. Raine’s two texts from 1968 and 1969 offer good introductions to Taylor and his significance to nineteenth-century English romantic authors like Blake, Coleridge, Shelley and Wordsworth, but have little to say about his eighteenth-century context. Tigerstedt 1974 only offers brief comments on Taylor’s Plato interpretation (48, 62–63). Tigerstedt 1977 ignores Taylor’s Plato interpretation completely. Glucker 1987 provides a good survey of nineteenth-century Plato interpretations in England, including that of Taylor (160–165), though without commenting on Taylor’s context in eighteenth-century Plato scholarship. Glucker 1996, 394–396, briefly identifies two eighteenth-century figures as central to the Plato reading against which Taylor reacted; Mosheim and Brucker. I examine these figures below. Burnyeat’s three articles dating from 1998 and 2001 do not examine the eighteenth-century assumptions informing these 1804 and 1809 reviews.

  13. 13.

    Rigg 1898, 468, thus stated about Taylor: “Critical faculty he had none.” Such ridicule is absent in the most recent biographical entry on Taylor; see Louth 2004. There are exceptions to the negative view of Taylor expressed by Rigg and others: See Saffrey and Westerink 1968, xcv, paying tribute to Taylor’s competence in Platonic texts (especially Proclus’ Platonic Theology) and to his textual conjectures; Allen 1982, 41 (“that eccentric but brilliant scholar-Platonist, Thomas Taylor”).

  14. 14.

    For this reading of Plato, see Annas 1999, 52–71; Sedley 1999; Beierwaltes 2002, 132–142; Karamanolis, 2004.

  15. 15.

    Taylor 1804, lxv [Taylor 1995, 45].

  16. 16.

    Taylor’s comment to Plato’s Phaedo in Plato 1804, IV: 273 n. 1 [Taylor’s comment to Plato’s Phaedo in Plato 1995–1996, IV: 246 n. 12].

  17. 17.

    Taylor affirms the centrality of wisdom and virtue in Plato’s Phaedo in his introduction to that dialogue; see Plato 1804, IV: 250 [Plato 1995–1996, IV: 232]. Moreover, Sydenham and Taylor refer approvingly to Plotinus elsewhere in the context of the soul’s noetic ascent and the intelligible realm, as is clear in the introductions to, and commentary to, Plato’s Phaedrus 246e (Plato 1804, III: 595 [Plato 1995–1996, III: 409]), Gorgias 525a (Plato 1804, IV: 455 [Plato 1995–1996, IV: 429]) and Meno (Plato 1804, V: 33 n. 1 [Plato 1995–1996, V: 30 n.]). For Plotinus’ virtue theory, see Dillon 1996, Smith 1999, Schniewind 2003 and 2005, McGroarty 2006, Remes 2006, Stern-Gillet 2009.

  18. 18.

    One example of this is found in Taylor’s introduction to the Phaedo, commenting on Phaedo 69c (Plato 1804, IV: 273 n. 1 [Taylor 1995–1996, IV: 309–311]).

  19. 19.

    Taylor 1804, lxvi [Taylor 1995, 45].

  20. 20.

    Plotinus, Enneads IV.7.10. Armstrong’s translation.

  21. 21.

    For Porphyry’s virtue theory in his Sententiae 32, see Porphyry, Sentences, I: 334–344, and the notes by Brisson and Flamand to that passage in Porphyry, Sentences, II: 628–642. For Porphyry on virtue theory, see also Smith 1974, 25–26, 48, 50, 59–61, 76–77, 104–105, 128, 134–135, 147–148, 153.

  22. 22.

    To some extent Marinus structures his biography according to a scheme of virtues, where we first find the physical, ethical and political virtues (3–17), then the higher virtues, that is, the purificatory, contemplative and theurgic virtues (18–35). For Neoplatonist biographies, see Edwards 2000.

  23. 23.

    Compare with Evans 1940, 1071: “It is quite true that Taylor made no distinction between the thoughts of Plato and the neo-Platonists; his notes and introductions are little more than compilations from the most heterogeneous neo-Platonic sources.” Evans 1940, 1071, cites approvingly [Mill] 1809, 191–192 [[Mill] 2001, 153–154], which reads: “Mr Taylor has scarcely done any thing, or indeed professed to do any thing, but to fasten upon Plato the reveries of Proclus, and of the other philosophers of the Alexandrian school.” Burnyeat 2001a, 106, tends to follow this line of interpretation: “Mill’s account of Proclus and other NeoPlatonists is grossly unfair. But I admit that I would not want to read Plato solely through their eyes. They miss so much that Cicero appreciates. Like Taylor, they completely lack his (and Mill’s) esteem for the Socratic spirit of questioning. And they are much too solemn.”

  24. 24.

    Taylor 1804, xxxv [Taylor 1995, 24]. Taylor similarly praises Proclus, among others, see Taylor 1804, xxxii, xlii, xlix, lxvii, lxxxvii, xc [Taylor 1995, 22, 28, 33, 67, 61, 62]. Taylor 1804, xlii-xlix [Taylor 1995, 28–33] cites Proclus’ interpretation of Plato’s “theological dogmas”. Finally, Taylor reports Proclus’ commentary to several of Plato’s dialogues in that 1804 publication.

  25. 25.

    Taylor 1804, xxxii-xxxiv [Taylor 1995, 22–23].

  26. 26.

    Taylor 1804, xxxv [Taylor 1995, 24].

  27. 27.

    E.g. Augustine, De civitate dei X.23, 29. For this subject, see Glawe 1912, which discusses Plato and the Trinity (and anti-Trinitarianism) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

  28. 28.

    Taylor 1804, lxxix [Taylor 1995, 55].

  29. 29.

    Taylor thus accuses pseudo-Dionysius for having “stolen” and Christianised the original Platonic concept of prayer developed by the Neoplatonists Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus and Hierocles; see Taylor’s ‘Introduction to the Second Alcibiades’ in Plato 1804, IV: 574 [Plato 1995–1996, IV: 541].

  30. 30.

    Taylor 1804, xc [Taylor 1995, 63].

  31. 31.

    Taylor 1804, iv, lxxix [Taylor 1995, 2, 55].

  32. 32.

    Taylor 1804, lxxxviii [Taylor 1995, 61].

  33. 33.

    Taylor 1804, xci [Taylor 1995, 63]. For further discussion of these recent critics, see Taylor 1804, lxxxix n. 1 [Taylor 1995, 81–82]. In his introduction to Plato’s Cratylus, Taylor similarly defends Proclus as a respectable interpreter of Plato, and rejects, once again, those “modern theologists” who claim that Proclus perverted Plato’s theology; see Taylor’s ‘Introduction’ to Plato’s Cratylus in Plato 1804, V: 488 [Plato 1995–1996, V: 460].

  34. 34.

    Burnyeat’s note to [Mill ] 2001, 156 n. 3.

  35. 35.

    Taylor’s note to the Phaedrus, in Plato 1804, III: 328 n. 2 [Plato 1995–1996, III: 414 n. 18].

  36. 36.

    For Porphyry, see, for instance, Warburton 1755–1758 I.1: 109; I.2: 216; II.1: 110, 111 n. c, 195. For Iamblichus, see, for instance, I.1: 122 n.; I.2: 323; II.1: 195–196. For Hierocles, see, for instance, I.2: 216 n. v, 228.

  37. 37.

    In this 1804 publication (i.e. The Works of Plato) Taylor does not refer explicitly to any of the important eighteenth- and nineteenth-century German critics of Neoplatonism, e.g. Heumann, Hansch, Mosheim, Budde, Brucker, Buhle, Büsching, Meiners, Tennemann, Tiedemann, Walch or Zedler. For criticism of Platonism — Plotinus in particular — in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, see Matton 1992, 647–653, 700–704; Neschke 1992; and Chap. 2, 3 and 4 above.

  38. 38.

    Catalogue 1836.

  39. 39.

    Glucker 1987, 170, observes that it was common in early nineteenth-century English scholarship to ignore German contributions; George Grote (1794–1871) was the first to take notice of their work in a serious way.

  40. 40.

    Taylor 1804, cvii [Taylor 1995, 75].

  41. 41.

    Jonsius’ work is mentioned in Catalogue 1836, 21 n. 569. Fabricius’ Bibliotheca Latina (2 vols, 1712) is listed in 7 nn. 138–140 (see also Taylor’s reference to this work of Fabricius, on 5 n. 75). Fabricius’ Bibliotheca graeca (14 vols, Hamburg 1708) is listed on 11 n. 282 (see also Taylor’s note reference to this work on 13 n. 314; 26 n. 696).

  42. 42.

    For Plotinus, see Jonsius 1659, 264–265, 281–282, 293.

  43. 43.

    Brucker 1742–1767, VI: 202.21–205.18, agrees with Warburton (relying on a Latin translation of his Divine Legation of Moses) against emanative and pantheistic systems of philosophy, and sees Warburton as siding with Mosheim.

  44. 44.

    Schleiermacher 1804, 7–9, objects to the systematization of Plato found in Brucker and his followers.

  45. 45.

    See [Mill ], 1809, 191–192 [[Mill] 2001, 153–154].

  46. 46.

    Raine 1969, 19–20.

  47. 47.

    It is stated in the bibliography to Raine 1969, 535, that the 1809 review “is usually attributed to James Mill”. Glucker 1996, 395–397, argues that James Mill is the author of both reviews. Burnyeat (2001b, 65 n. 41; 2001a) reaches the same conclusion.

  48. 48.

    For identical references to Cicero’s Academica and its sceptical interpretation of Plato; see [Mill ] 1804/2001, 115–116 (referring to the Academica I.15–16, I.46), and [Mill ] 1809, 192 [[Mill ] 2001, 154].

  49. 49.

    [Mill] 1809, 193–194 [[Mill] 2001, 156].

  50. 50.

    [Mill ] 1809, 194 [[Mill] 2001, 156–157].

  51. 51.

    [Mill ] 1809, 194–195 [[Mill] 2001, 157–158].

  52. 52.

    [Mill ] 1809), 195–198 [[Mill] 2001, 158–163].

  53. 53.

    Brucker separated Middle Platonism from what we have come to call ‘Neoplatonism’. Brucker himself labelled the Neoplatonic movement ‘secta eclectica’, the ‘eclectic sect’. For his account of Neoplatonism, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 189–462, and Chap. 3 above.

  54. 54.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 669.13–23.

  55. 55.

    Compare with Burnyeat 2001a, 105: “Because he [James Mill] was on his own, he had the luck to fall in love with a Plato unencumbered by the NeoPlatonic interpretation which had prevailed since Ficino and the Renaissance. He read Plato and he read Cicero, and found the second an attractive guide to the first. Later he read Taylor, a mere epigonous of Ficino.” Brucker is ignored as a possible source of inspiration. Burnyeat’s further suggestion, that Taylor simply succumbed to Ficino’s influence, fits badly with Taylor’s own rejection of Ficino’s Platonism (Taylor 1804, xc [Taylor 1995, 63]), and it is at loggerheads with the fact that Ficino’s interpretation of Plato had not been dominant since the first half of the eighteenth century, as explained in Tigerstedt 1974 and 1977. For further discussion of the differences between the respective forms of Platonism upheld by Ficino and Taylor, see Catana 2011.

  56. 56.

    For Brucker’s reconstruction, see Catana 2008, 73–94.

  57. 57.

    Taylor 1804, lxxxv, ci [Taylor 1995, 59, 70].

  58. 58.

    [Mill ] 1809, 193 [[Mill] 2001, 155].

  59. 59.

    Here I follow the 1809 edition ([Mill ] 1809, 193), which reads “absurd multitude”, not “abused multitude”, as transcribed by Burnyeat in [Mill ] 2001, 193. [Mill] 1809, 195 [[Mill ] 2001, 159], also refers to the “admiration of a deluded multitude”. For Neoplatonists and their respective relations to society, see Smith 2005.

  60. 60.

    Hobbes 1983, 152–153.

  61. 61.

    For the writing of philosophy’s past up till Brucker, see Blackwell and Weller 1993; Piaia and Santinello 2011. For the origin of the biographical genre in late ancient philosophy, see Edwards and Swain 1997; Edwards 2000. We are less well informed about the eighteenth-century crisis and marginalization of the biographical genre.

  62. 62.

    For this evaluation of Laertius, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 32.21–33.

  63. 63.

    Perhaps one should not write off the interest in the philosopher’s persona among eighteenth-century philosophers. It may be more to the point to interpret Brucker’s move as a desire to replace the prestigious persona of the Renaissance philosopher — the contemplative Platonist who sometimes found himself in conflict with Christian orthodoxy and university institutions (e.g. Pico and Bruno) — with a new persona conforming to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century harmonisation in Northern Europe of Protestant church and national state (including its universities). For this harmonisation and its implications for the philosopher’s persona, see Condren, Gaukroger and Hunter 2006. For a theoretical clarification of the concept of persona as a hermeneutic tool in the history of early modern philosophy, see Hunter 2007.

  64. 64.

    Hadot 1995, 107–108, suggests that medieval scholasticism distinguished philosophy’s spiritual content from its theoretical content; the former was transformed into theology, the latter into philosophy. My analysis opens up another perspective: Brucker’s introduction of the historiographical concept system of philosophy implies that post-Bruckerian historians of philosophy have been inadequately equipped to identify this “spiritual” dimension in past philosophy.

  65. 65.

    Heumann 1715b, 144–146, 148. We find the same characterisation of Neoplatonic biographies in Brucker 1742–1767, II: 319.3–13, 328.6–14 (Marinus’ biography on Proclus), 378.23–379.40 (Neoplatonist biographies and histories in general).

  66. 66.

    [Mill ] 1809, 191–192 [[Mill] 2001, 153–154].

  67. 67.

    For these “squeaks” targeting the personalities of some Neoplatonists, see [Mill ] 1809, 195–197 [[Mill] 2001, 159–163].

  68. 68.

    [Mill ] 1809, 194 [[Mill] 2001, 157], cites Brucker’s disparaging account of Proclus’ personality and virtues. Mill does not discuss Neoplatonic virtue theory per se.

  69. 69.

    For Mill’s denigrating words about Platonic furor and enthusiamus, see for instance [Mill] 1809, 196–197 [[Mill] 2001, 161–162], citing Brucker 1742–1767, II: 231.5–14 (Oriental theology introduced into Neoplaotonism superstition and enthusiasm).

  70. 70.

    Unfortunately, eighteenth-century German Protestant polemics against Platonic and Neoplatonic virtue ethics has not yet been studied thoroughly in discussions of eighteenth-century Platonism; see Knox 1957, Tigerstedt 1974 and 1977, Neschke 1992, Israel 2001, Franz 2003, Israel 2006, Varani 2008, Vassányi 2011 and Hanegraaff 2012. As Glucker 1996, 395 n. 27, observes, Tigerstedt’s two books are “too brief … The proper and extensive history of the modern study of Plato is yet to be written.” Matton 1992, Heyd 1995 and Varani 2008 have carried out important work in this direction, although much still needs to be done, in particular when it comes to the metaphysical, psychological and ethical aspects of Platonic and Neoplatonic virtue ethics in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Protestant thought.

  71. 71.

    For the apologetic nature of the history of philosophy proposed by Heumann and Brucker, see Catana 2008, 147–191; Catana 2013b, 623–624. For Brucker’s apologetic agenda, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 21.10–23.25, especially 21.17–32, where it is said that the history of philosophy leads not only to the recognition of truths and felicity, but also to the expulsion of errors dangerous to Christianity, e.g. those of Platonists.

  72. 72.

    I have not had access to the 1690–1691 first edition. Instead I rely on the 1710 edition of that work. In Colberg 1710, 4–16, it is claimed that Plotinus’ metaphysics and psychology were instrumental to Platonic philosophy and its notion of noetic ascent by means of higher ethical virtues. On 103–107, this Plotinian metaphysics is regarded as central to the Platonic philosophy that has contaminated contemporary non-confessional religious movements. For Colberg’s attack on Platonism, see Varani 2008, 192–205.

  73. 73.

    For the dangerous error of Platonic philosophy, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 22.20–23.25. For Ficino and Pico as deplorable examples of such a revival, see IV: 59.38–60.4.

  74. 74.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 7.27–34: “Duplex vero veritatis ad veri boni possessionem, et exoriundam inde felicitatem ducentis cognitionis fons est, unus congenitae lucis sive rationis humanae regulae, alter divina revelatio. Cum enim adeo angustis limitibus humanus intellectus circumscriptus sit, ut patentissimos veritatis universae campos emetiri, immo nec ea. omnia cognoscere valeat, quae tamen felicitatis humanae ratio cognosci et sciri postulat, necesse erat, ut divina revelatio suppetias homini ferret, et de iis eum instrueret, quae felicitatem eius summo loco ponere apta sunt.” For the doctrine on double truth in Lutheran theology, see Bianchi, 2008, 25–32.

  75. 75.

    For Brucker’s confessional identity, see also François 1998, especially 107.

  76. 76.

    See, for instance, Brucker 1742–1767, I: 26.26–30, where Brucker speaks of the mystery of salvation (mysterium salutis), referring to the redemption of the Christian’s soul.

  77. 77.

    For the assessment of the system’s internal coherence, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 15.10–18.

  78. 78.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 682.5–29, Brucker discusses whether Plato was guilty of Spinozism by claiming in the Timaeus that the universe is a fusion of the divinity and matter.

  79. 79.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 832.14–835.6. Compare with Israel 2006, 409–512, especially 479; Israel contends that Brucker was undogmatic and a keen defender of freedom of thought from theological and political authority.

  80. 80.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 257 n. d, referring to Augustine, De civitate dei XIX.23. For Porphyry as an “enemy” (hostis) of Christianity, see Brucker 1742–1767, II: 251.14–257.17. For the general opposition between Neoplatonism and Christianity, see, for instance, II: 372.12–376.13.

  81. 81.

    For Brucker on Arabic philosophy, see Flasch 1998, 187–197.

  82. 82.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 191.1–23 (characteristic of Alexandrian Neoplatonism, the secta eclectica, to fuse popular religious superstition with philosophical eclecticism), 318.1–7 (Proclus’ “insania superstitio”), 321.13–17 (superstition in Alexandria). For the alleged superstition among Alexandrian Neoplatonists, see for instance II: 325.8–20, 330.15–18, 358.18–33, 370.23–371.30. Brucker also finds it in the so-called theology of Iamblichus; see II: 431.20–435.20. On I: 22.20–23, Brucker claims that superstition is inherent in Platonism as such. For a modern discussion of Iamblichus’ theology, see Bussanich, 2002.

  83. 83.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 318.16–319.33. See also Brucker’s general account of the virtues in the Neoplatonic system, which are similarly rejected as non-Christian; II: 459.29–462.22.

  84. 84.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 7.27–34.

  85. 85.

    For the ideal historian of philosophy judging past systems without prejudices, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 12.18–13.3. Genuine philosophers, i.e. eclectics, reflect without prejudices; see V: 3.22–4.11.

  86. 86.

    Heumann 1715–1716, 183.11–13. Heumann condemns Epicureans and similar thinkers on the same grounds; 235.20–236.16. For Brucker on the authority of revelation, see Brucker 1742–1767, I: 7.27–34.

  87. 87.

    Compare with Israel 2001, 327, 474, 547, 645, and Israel 2006, 409–512, especially 477–479. For some links between university culture and the search for confessional identity in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Germany, see Hsia 1989.

  88. 88.

    For Mill on the superstition of the Neoplatonists, see for instance [Mill] 1809, 196–197 [[Mill ] 2001, 161–162], citing Brucker 1742–1767, II: 231.5–14.

  89. 89.

    [Mill] 1809, 194 [[Mill] 2001, 157], citing Brucker 1742–1767, II: 333.12–23.

  90. 90.

    [Mill ] 1809, 196 [[Mill] 2001, 161], citing Brucker 1742–1767, II: 231.5–14.

  91. 91.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 7.27–34.

  92. 92.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 22.20–23.25.

  93. 93.

    Hochschild 2002.

  94. 94.

    For More’s use of Plotinus and Ficino, see Hutton 2007.

  95. 95.

    More 1690, 11.

  96. 96.

    More 1690, 81–82.

  97. 97.

    More 1690, 16.

  98. 98.

    More 1690, 8–9, 29–30, 192.

  99. 99.

    More 1690, 14.

  100. 100.

    More 1690, 220–221.

  101. 101.

    More 1690, 205.

  102. 102.

    Taylor 1804, iv, lxxix [Taylor 1995, 2, 55].

  103. 103.

    More is presented as a near-contemporary exponent of Platonism in Hansch 1716, 134; Walch 1775, II: col. 1205.

  104. 104.

    Brucker 1742–1767, IV: 439.1–440.4. See also the account of More on IV: 439–443.

  105. 105.

    Bücher 1699, A2r-A4v, B4r, C1v. For Bücher’s criticism of ancient Platonism, see Glawe 1912, 103–105; Lehmann-Brauns 2004, 187–222. Bücher’s anti-Platonism is not studied in Tigerstedt’s two works of 1974 and 1977. Remarkably, Bücher is given an entry neither in the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (1875–1912) nor in the Neue deutsche Biographie (1952-).

  106. 106.

    [Olearius] 1711, 1205–1222. Olearius is not mentioned as the translator and author to the supplements. However, several eighteenth-century authors identify him as the author; see Chap. 3, Sect. 3.3 above.

  107. 107.

    Hansch 1716, 55–57.

  108. 108.

    Hansch 1716, 88–92.

  109. 109.

    Hansch 1716, 71. For Hansch’s attack on Platonic enthusiasm, see Varani 2008, 179–191.

  110. 110.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 190 n. c and several other places in the section on Neoplatonism (II: 189–462).

  111. 111.

    Walch 1775, I: 1205.

  112. 112.

    Brucker 1742–1767, I: 38 n. e; V: 545.29–31, refers approvingly to Walch.

  113. 113.

    Walch 1775, II: col. 1226.

  114. 114.

    For Brucker’s regular visits to Budde’s house and for his friendship with Budde’s son, Carl Friedrich Budde, see Alt 1926, 42–43. For Walch’s connection to Budde’s daughter, see Alt 1926, 40; Schmitt 1998, col. 183.

  115. 115.

    Brucker 1742–1767, II: 366.25–367.3.

  116. 116.

    For this medical criticism of Meric Casaubon, see Heyd 1995, 44–92.

  117. 117.

    Taylor 1804, xci [Taylor 1995, 63]. Compare with Raine 1969, 3–4, who claims that Taylor lived in an age with two cultures, that of the “scholastic theologians” and that of the “romantic poets”. Taylor may have influenced these romantic poets through his works on the Platonic tradition, but his attention in those works is not directed at the romantics, but at the Platonic tradition itself, as his 1804 publication of Plato indicates. Hence I find it slightly misleading to present Taylor as belonging to the camp of romantic poets, standing in opposition to the camp of scholastic theologians; Taylor is first of all placed in a philosophical tradition. Raine 1969, 4, explains: “The divergence between those ‘two’ [cultures] whose frontiers may be variously drawn goes back to Greece; and the ultimate distinction lies in what is thought to be the nature of the primary reality.” Though I agree that Taylor took a very critical stance towards the culture of Protestant academics, including theologians, I also find that there is a danger in this sweeping picture; we risk losing sight of Taylor’s immediate background, eighteenth-century philosophy and its histories of philosophy.

  118. 118.

    Schneider 1993.

  119. 119.

    For a late follower of Brucker’s idea of the history of philosophy as the history of philosophical systems, see Copleston 1985, I: 2–9.

  120. 120.

    For Brucker’s influence, see Catana 2008, 193–282.

  121. 121.

    For Zeller’s use of the historiographical concept eclecticism in regard to Neoplatonism, see Zeller 1919–1923, III.1: 547–564.

  122. 122.

    Mill was in line with public ridicule of Taylor in the years leading up to his 1804 publication; see Evans 1940, 1068–1070.

  123. 123.

    Glucker 1987, 165.

References

  • 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 

  • Allen, Michael J. B. 1982. Ficino’s Theory of the Five Substances and the Neoplatonists’ Parmenides. The Journal of Medieval & Renaissance Studies 12: 19–44. Reprint in M. J. B. Allen, Plato’s Third Eye. Studies in Marsilio Ficino’s Metaphysics and Its Sources. Aldershot, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, Karl. 1926. Jakob Brucker ein Schulmeister des 18. Jahrhunderts. Erlangen.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierwaltes, Werner. 2002. Das Eine als Norm des Lebens. In Metaphysik und Religion. eds T. Kobusch and M. Erler, 121–151. Munich and Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, Luca. 2008. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, Constance, and Phillip Weller (eds). 1993. Models of the History of Philosophy: From Its Origins in the Renaissance to the ‘Historia Philosophica’, vol. 1. Dordrecht.

    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 

  • Bücher, Friedrich Christian. 1699. Plato mysticus in pietista redivivus. Das ist Pietistiche Übereinstmmung mit der Heydnischen Phiosophia Platonis und seiner Nachfolger. Danzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat, Myles F. 1998. The Past in the Present: Plato as Educator of Nineteenth-Century Britain. In Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives, ed. A. O. Rorty, 353–373. London.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussanich, John. 2002. Philosophy, Theology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus. In Metaphysik und Religion, eds T. Kobusch and M. Erler, 39–61. Munich and Leipzig.

    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 

  • Catalogue of the Singularly Curious Library of the late Thomas Taylor, Esq., the Celebrated Platonist. Produced by Mr. Sotherby and son, London, in relation to the Auction held on February 2, 1836 and the following Day. I cite this as “Catalogue 1836”.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Catana, Leo. 2011. Thomas Taylor: An Epigone of Ficino? The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 5.2: 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catana, Leo. 2013a. Philosophical Problems in the History of Philosophy: What are They? In Philosophy and Its History: New Essays on the Methods and Aims of Research in the History of Philosophy, eds M. Lærke, J. E. H. Smith and E. Schliesser. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catana, Leo. 2013b. The History of the History of Philosophy, and the Lost Biographical Tradition. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20.3: 619–625.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Colberg, Ehregott Daniel. 1710. Platonisch-Hermetisches Christenthum begreiffend. Die historische Erzehlung vom Ursprung und vielerley Secten der heutigen Fanatischen Theologie, unter Namen der Paracelsisten, Weigelianer, Rosencreuzer, Quäcker, Böhmisten, Wiedertäuffer, Bourignisten, Labadisten, und Quietisten ausgefettiget. [1st ed., 2 vols, 1690–1691]. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condren, Conal; Gaukroger, Stephen; and Ian Hunter (eds). 2006. The Philosopher in Early Modern Europe: The Nature of a Contested Identity. Cambridge.

    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 

  • Dillon, John. 1996. An Ethic for the Late Antique Sage. In Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, ed. L. P. Gerson, 315–335. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Mark. 2000. Neoplatonic Saints. The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by Their Students, trans. and intro. M. Edwards. Liverpool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Mark, and Simon Swain (eds). 1997. Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enfield, William. 1791. The History of Philosophy, from the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the present Century, drawn up from Brucker’s Historia critica philosophiae, 2 vols. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Frank B. 1940. Thomas Taylor, Platonist of the Romantic Period. Modern Language Association 55.4: 1060–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Frank B. 1943. Platonic Scholarship in Eighteenth-Century England. Modern Philology 41.2: 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabricius, Johann Albert. 1708–1728. Bibliotheca graeca, 14 vols. Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flasch, Kurt. 1998. Jacob Brucker und die Philosophie des Mittelalters. In Jacob Brucker (1696–1770). Philosoph und Historiker der europäischen Aufklärung, eds W. Schmidt-Biggemann and T. Stammen, 187–197. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • François, Etienne. 1998. Bruckers Stellung in der Augsburger Konfessionsgeschichte. In Jacob Brucker (1696–1770). Philosoph und Historiker der europäischen Aufklärung, eds W. Schmidt-Biggemann and T. Stammen, 99–109. Berlin.

    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 

  • Glawe, Walther. 1912. Die Hellenisierung des Christentums: In der Geschichte der Theologie von Luther bis auf die Gegenwart. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glucker, John. 1987. Plato in England: The Nineteenth Century and After. In Utopie und Tradition: Platons Lehre vom Staat in der Moderne, ed. H. Funke, 149–210. Würzburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glucker, John. 1996. The two Platos of Victorian England. In Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy, eds K Algra, P. van der Horst and D. Runia, 385–406. Leiden, New York and Köln.

    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 

  • Hanegraaff, Wouter J. 2012. Esotericism and the Academy. Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, Christoph August. 1715–1716. Einleitung zur historia philosophica. Acta philosophorum 1.1 (1715): 1–103 [chapter 1–3]; 1.2 (1715): 179–236 [chapter 4], 246–314 [chapter 5]; 1.4 (1716): 567–670 [chapter 6]; 1.3 (1715): 381–462 [chapter 7].

    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 

  • 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 

  • Hobbes, Thomas. 1983. De cive, ed. H. Warrender. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, Joshua P. 2002. ‘Porphyry, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas: A Neoplatonic Hierarchy of Virtues and Two Christian Appropriations’, in Medieval Philosophy and the Classical Tradition in Islam, Judaism and Christianity, ed. J. Inglis, 245–259. Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsia, R. Po-chia. 1989. Social Discipline in the Reformation, Central Europe 1550–1750. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Ian. 2007. The History of Philosophy and the Persona of the Philosopher. Modern Intellectual History 4: 571–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, Sarah. 2007. Henry More, Ficino and Plotinus: The Continuity of Renaissance Platonism. In Forme del Neoplatonismo. Dall’eredità ficiniana ai platonici di Cambridge, ed. L. Simonutti, 281–296. Florence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Radical Enlightenment. Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650–1750. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Israel, Jonathan. 2006. Enlightenment Contested. Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670–1752. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Knox, Ronald A. 1957. Enthusiasm. A Chapter in the History of Religion. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann-Brauns, Sicco. 2004. Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte: Philosophiegeschichte zwischen Barock und Aufklärung. Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louth, Andew. 2004. Taylor, Thomas (1758–1835). In The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, general eds H. C. G. Matthey and B. Harrison, 63 vols, LIII: 988–989. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. A Study in Moral Theory. London.

    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 

  • McGroarty, Kieran. 2006. Plotinus on Eudaimonia: A Commentary on Ennead I 4. Oxford.

    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 

  • More, Henry. 1690. Enchiridion ethicum, Eng. trans. [London, 1690]. Reprint: New York, 1930. I cite the reprint as “More 1690”.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neschke, Ada. 1992. Le degré zéro de la philosophie platonicienne: Platon dans l’Historia critica philosophiae de J. J. Brucker (1742). Revue de Metaphysique et de morale 97: 377–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notopoulos, James A. 1936. Shelley and Thomas Taylor. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 51.2: 502–517.

    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 

  • Piaia, Gregorio, and Giovanni Santinello (eds). 2011. Models of the History of Philosophy: Vol. II: From Cartesian age to Brucker. Dordrecht, Heideberg, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 1804. The Works of Plato, 5 vols, Eng. trans. and comm. T. Taylor and F. Sydenham. London. Reprint: New York, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 1995–1996. The Works of Plato, 5 vols., Eng. trans. T. Taylor and F. Sydenham. Second ed. by The Prometheus Trust. Dorset. This new edition contains orthographic changes, corrections of grammatical errors and spelling, and some re-arrangement of the notes in the edition from 1804.

    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 

  • Raine, Kathleen. 1968. Thomas Taylor, Plato and the English Romantic Movement. British Journal of Aesthetics 8.2: 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raine, Kathleen. 1969. Thomas Taylor in England. In Thomas Taylor the Platonist: Selected writings, ed. and intro. K. Raine and G. M. Harper, 3–48. Princeton, N. J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remes, Pauliina. 2006. Plotinus’ Ethics of Disinterested Interest. Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1: 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigg, James McMullen. 1898. Taylor, Thomas (1758–1835). In Dictionary of National Biography, 63 vols, general eds L. Stephen and S. Lee. Smith, XIX (1898), 468–470. London, 1885–1900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saffrey, Henri Dominique, and Leendert Gert Westerink, 1968. Introduction. In Proclus, Théologie platonicienne, 6 vols, Greek and French text, ed., trans. and notes H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink, I: ix-clxv. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1804. Einleitung. In Plato, Werke, 3 vols in 6 parts, intro. and trans. F. Schleiermacher, I.1 (1804): 1–52. Berlin, 1804–1828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, Christoph. 1998. Walch, Johann Georg. In Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol. 1-, eds F. W. Bautz and T. Bautz, vol. 13 (1998), cols 183–186. Herzberg, 1970-.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Ulrich Johannes. 1993. The Teaching of Philosophy at German Universities in the Nineteenth Century. In History of Universities, ed. L. Brockliss, 197–338. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schniewind, Alexandrine. 2003. Lʼéthique du sage chez Plotin: Le paradigme du Spoudaios. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schniewind, Alexandrine. 2005. The Social Concern of the Plotinian Sage. In The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity, ed. A. Smith, 51–64. Swansea.

    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 

  • Smith, Andrew. 1974. Porphyryʼs Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Andrew. 1999. The Significance of Practical Ethics for Plotinus. In Traditions of Platonism: Essays in Honour of John Dillon, ed. J. J. Cleary, 227–236. Aldershot and Brookefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Andrew. (ed.). 2005. The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Brown. Swansea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern-Gillet, Suzanne. 2009. Dual Selfhood and Self-perfection in the Enneads. Epoche: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 13.2: 331–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1787. An Essay on the Beautiful. London, 1787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1792. Introduction. In Plotinus, An Essay on the Beautiful, iii-xx. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1794. Introduction. In Plotinus, Five Books of Plotinus, i-lxvii. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1804. General Introduction. In Plato, The Works of Plato, 5 vols., Eng. trans. T. Taylor and F. Sydenham, I: i-cxv. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1817. Introduction. In T. Taylor, Select Works of Plotinus, v-lxxxiii. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Thomas. 1995. General Introduction. In Plato, The works of Plato, 5 vols., Eng. trans. T. Taylor and F. Sydenham, second ed. by The Prometheus Trust, I (1995): 1–89. Dorset, 1995–1996.

    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 

  • Varani, Giovanna. 2008. Pensiero ‘alato’ e modernità. Il neoplatonismo nella storiografia filosofica in Germania (1559–1807), preface G. Piaia. Padua.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vassányi, Miklós. 2011. Anima mundi: The Rise of the World Soul Theory in Modern German Philosophy. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walch, Johann Georg. 1740. Philosophisches Lexicon, 2 vols with continuous pagination. Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walch, Johann Georg. 1775. Philosophisches Lexicon, appended a summary of Brucker’s history of philosophy by J. C. Hennings. Leipzig. Reprint: Hildesheim, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, William. 1755–1758. Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated on the Principles of a Religious Deist, 4th ed., 2 vols in 4 parts.

    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). Thomas Taylor’s Dissent from Some Eighteenth-Century Views on Platonic Philosophy: The Ethical and Theological Context. 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation