maximus of tyre
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

37
(FIVE YEARS 10)

H-INDEX

1
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Author(s):  
Mikolaj Domaradzki

The present article discusses the ingenious account of Zeus that was put forward by Maximus of Tyre in his Orations IV and XXVI. When reading into Homer various Platonic and Stoic concepts, Maximus originally amalgamates the notion of Demiurge with that of Providence. As he thus unearths Homer’s latent theology, Maximus not only praises the heritage of Greek culture but also demonstrates the close affinity between poetry and philosophy.


Hypothekai ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 43-63
Author(s):  
Angel Pascual-Martin ◽  

The common 4th century B.C. view according to which Homer was regarded as a poet and a wise man, the leading and most honorable, to the point of being considered “the educator of Greece” (Pl. Resp. 606e-607a), is strongly supported by the Pla-tonic dialogues. The works of Plato are the main available source to get to know not only the great pedagogical esteem for Homer, but also the several educational traditions that used or relied on Homeric poetry in Classical Athens. We are certainly used to thinking of Socrates as standing out for contesting or blaming such customs and methods provided by rhapsodes, sophists and common people (Pl. Resp.; Ion; Hp. mi.). But conversely, he is also often depicted quoting, alluding to or remaking on Homeric passages when presenting his own views. Socrates even claims to feel a certain friendship or reverence for the poet and declares to be charmed by contemplating things through him, whom he con-siders to be amongst the few deserving to be called “philosophers” (Pl. Resp. 595b; 607c-d; Phdr. 278b-279b). The puzzling twofold nature of the Socratic attitude towards Homer, coupled with the fact that Plato would become a figure as honored as the poet was, led ancient literary criticism to focus on the Platonic use and sharing of material and techniques proper to Homeric poetry. Works like those of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Maximus of Tyre, Longinus and above all Proclus, not only pointed out the philosopher’s debt to the poet, but even consid-ered him to be an admirer of the Homeric genius unlike anyone else, and whose emulation basically attempted to reach and out-perform the pedagogical power that the legendary poet had (Dion. Hal. Pomp. I, 13; Max. Tyr. Or. 26; [Longinus]; Subl. XIII, 2-3; Procl., In R. VI, 163.13-164.7; 202.7-205.23). With an analogous spirit, studies of contemporary Platonists suggest that the dialogues were shaped using the Homeric text, especially the Odyssey, as a template, and making Socrates ap-pear as going through equivalent experiences to those of Odys-seus’ “νόστος”. With respect to Protagoras, previous attempts focused on explicit references to books X and XI, placing the dispute with the sophist and the events at Callias’ house in the symbolic context of Odysseus’ encounter with Circe and the fol-lowing journey into the underworld. I attempt to bring that read-ing one step further, paying special attention to the narrated character and the dramatic context for the singing of those epi-sodes and the parallel ones in Protagoras. In first place, I consider the whole dialogue refiguring the epi-sode in the Odyssey that works as a dramatic frame for the sing-ing of Odysseus’ past adventures, the arrival at Phaeacia and the reception at Alcinous’ court. I regard Odysseus’ need to sing the Apologue as a call for hospitality to secure a safe passage home, working as a pattern for Socrates’ need of a tale at his own ap-pearance in Athens to fulfill and secure a philosophical education in the city. In second place, I take into consideration the metanar-rative dimension of such remaking. Since Socrates’ narration comes in response to a certain “Ὁμήρου ἐπαινέτης”, a “praiser of Homer” (Pl. Prt. 309b1), as Odysseus’ Apologue is to Demo-docus the “ἀοιδὸς”, I examine how the dialogue could evince a dispute for pedagogical primacy amongst the different narratives and uses of poetry in Athens, a dispute that the Platonic narrative would attempt to surpass precisely by imitating Homer.


2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-102
Author(s):  
Elsa Giovanna Simonetti

This article investigates the relation between ancient divinatory theories and ontological assumptions about individuals, the gods, and the cosmos through the writings of Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus, and Maximus of Tyre—three philosophers who belong to the first Roman imperial age. By exploring their works in light of recent anthropological studies, this article will discuss how different divinatory systems generate, and are embedded in, specific ontologies. All three writers analyze divination as a means to bridge contingency and transcendence and to situate individuals within the cosmos. As such, their analysis of divination relates to specific ontological systems: a mono-ontology reducible to one divinematerial principle for Epictetus, and the poly-ontology of a graduated cosmos for Dio Chrysostom and Maximus of Tyre.


Author(s):  
Alexei Garadja ◽  

Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century ad) is most poorly and confusedly attested in ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socrates’ daimonion’ (Or. 8–9), which has been also dealt with by Maximus’ fellow Platonists of the Middle stage Plutarchus of Chaeronea (46 – after 119), in De Socratis demonio, and Apuleius of Madauros (c. 124 – c. 170), in De deo Socratis. All of them, with slight variations, consider demons intermediary beings shuttling between heavens and earth, gods and humans; at one point, Maximus compares them to translators who ensure contacts between people of different cultures. Maximus’ Platonism mainly manifests in his attempts to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The style is paramount for Maximus, him being not only a Platonist, but also a prominent representative of the Second Sophistic. As an eclectic philosopher, he introduces into his writings sundry Aristotelean and Stoic threads interwoven with Platonic warp and woof. Revealing himself a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as other ancient authors, whose many fragments are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 8–9 based on thoroughly corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.


Maximus of Tyre (fl. late 2nd century ad) is most poorly and confusedly attested by ancient sources. The best testimony to be found is his extant collection of 41 Orationes, or Dissertationes, addressing a wide range of topics, including the issue of ‘Socratic love’ (Or. 18–21), i.e. of Plato’s theory of eros dealt with by the latter, imprimis, in his dialogues Symposium and Phaedrus. Maximus of Tyre may be dubbed a ‘Platonist’, though not in a scholastic vein (as, e.g., his contemporary and sometime neighbour in the manuscripts Albinus), but rather as an author who strived to mould his own writings in the spirit and style of Plato’s works. The author closest to Maximus may have been Favorinus of Arelate (ca. 80 – ca. 160). As a widely educated person, Maximus shows a good knowledge of Plato as well as of other ancient authors, whose many fragments (e.g., of Sappho and Anacreon) are extant solely thanks to his quotations. Maximus is scarcely known in the Russian language: a few translations of the last century are based on an obsolescent edition. As an appendix, a new Russian translation of Or. 20–21 based on seriously corrected editions of Maximus’ text is provided.


2020 ◽  
pp. e03015
Author(s):  
Francesca Pentassuglio

This paper focuses on the figure and the role of Aspasia in Aeschines’ eponymous dialogue, with special regard to the Milesian’s ‘paideutic’ activity and the double bond connecting it to Socrates’ teaching, namely the elenctic method and a particular application of Σωκρατικὸς ἔρως. The study aims to highlight some crucial traits of Aeschines’ Aspasia by examining three key texts, all numbered among the testimonies on the Aspasia: Cicero’s account in De inventione 1.31.51-53 and two fundamental passages from Xenophon’s Memorabilia (2.3.36) and Oeconomicus (3.14). After analysing a set of ancient sources which repeatedly mention the close and personal association between Socrates and Aspasia (Plato, Maximus of Tyre, Plutarch, Theodoret of Cyrus), I will try to reconstruct the dialogical context of Xenophon’s testimonies and to combine them with Cicero’s account. My final aim is to clarify the role of Aspasia in Aeschines’ presentation of the Socratic theory of ἔρως. In pursuing this main objective, in the concluding section I will address two further issues: (1) Aspasia’s connection with the figure of Diotima, as depicted in the same ancient sources and (2) the relationship between Aspasias’ pedagogical use of ἔρως and that made by Socrates in the Alcibiades.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document