{"title":"普罗克罗斯,斑岩,阿提克斯和制造者?关于进程的评论。Ii, 1.393.31-394.5 diehl(植物学报,第28期)","authors":"Gerd Van Riel","doi":"10.1017/S0009838819000120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii (= In Ti.) II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl (which is Atticus, fr. 28 in the edition of Des Places), Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker (ποιητής), which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text.","PeriodicalId":47185,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","volume":"68 1","pages":"681 - 688"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838819000120","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROCLUS, PORPHYRY, ATTICUS AND THE MAKER? REMARKS ON PROCLUS, IN TI. II, 1.393.31–394.5 DIEHL (ATTICUS, FR. 28)\",\"authors\":\"Gerd Van Riel\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0009838819000120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii (= In Ti.) II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl (which is Atticus, fr. 28 in the edition of Des Places), Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker (ποιητής), which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47185,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"681 - 688\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0009838819000120\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838819000120\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLASSICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838819000120","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在柏拉图的评论中(= In Ti.)II, 1.393.31-394.5 Diehl(即阿提库斯,Des Places,第28版),Proclus遵循波菲利的推论,反对阿提库斯的理论,更准确地集中在后者对原则的描述与柏拉图自己所阐述的观点不符这一事实上。在Diehl的文本中,基于有限的主要手稿证人的选择,这一批评的介绍性短语包含了对制造者(ποιητ ς)的参考,这在上下文中不容易解释。在对手稿传统的新检查的基础上,以及段落的上下文,我们将提出一个新的猜想,允许人们避免Diehl阅读文本所涉及的问题。
PROCLUS, PORPHYRY, ATTICUS AND THE MAKER? REMARKS ON PROCLUS, IN TI. II, 1.393.31–394.5 DIEHL (ATTICUS, FR. 28)
At In Platonis Timaeum Commentarii (= In Ti.) II, 1.393.31–394.5 Diehl (which is Atticus, fr. 28 in the edition of Des Places), Proclus follows Porphyry's inferences against the theory of Atticus, focussing more precisely on the fact that the latter's account of the principles does not correspond to the views expounded by Plato himself. In Diehl's text, based on a limited selection of primary manuscript-witnesses, the introductory phrase to this criticism contains a reference to the maker (ποιητής), which cannot easily be explained within the context. On the basis of a new examination of the manuscript tradition, and of the context of the passage, we will present a new conjecture that allows one to avoid the problems involved in Diehl's reading of the text.
期刊介绍:
The Classical Quarterly has a reputation for publishing the highest quality classical scholarship for nearly 100 years. It publishes research papers and short notes in the fields of language, literature, history and philosophy. Two substantial issues (around 300 pages each) of The Classical Quarterly appear each year, in May and December. Given the quality and depth of the articles published in The Classical Quarterly, any serious classical library needs to have a copy on its shelves. Published for the The Classical Association