Soloviev Roman

The emergence of the term "neoplatonism" and the historiographical clichés which it generates

Abstract

The article traces the history of the division of Platonic tradition into Middle and New Platonism, as well as the origin and usage of the term "Neoplatonism". The division of Platonism into the periods of Ancient Academy, Middle Platonism and New Platonism, which had been useful in the past, nowadays hinders the formation of a reliable historical view, as it turns out to be not strict at all for such authors as Longinus, Chalcidius, Numenius, Amelius and Porphyry, and also creates an impression of the closed nature of the mentioned periods in both diachronic and synchronic dimensions. The term "Neoplatonism" was introduced in German historiography by J. Brucker and initially conveyed a sharply negative assessment. The distaste for a specific type of philosophizing led Brucker's followers to make a clear distinction between the original Platonism and the subsequent 'distortions'. An analysis of Brucker's use of the term shows its biased character, distorting the representation of late Platonism and creating a strain according to which the terminological break represents a valid break in late Antique Platonism. This approach has caused among scholars a marginalization of Neoplatonism, presented as a self-sufficient and closed school, impervious to the influence of other philosophical schools, including Christianity (an approach shared by H. Dörrie, L. Brisson, A. Segon, Ph. Offmann and C. de Vogel). The author has identified the reasons of the pejorative attitude to the late Platonists in the science of XVIIIth – first half of XXth centuries, which did not take into account the self-perception of Platonists and their method of treatment of philosophical material, and also analyses modern attempts to reassess the established classification (L. Katana, L. Gerson, T. Rodriguez). The examples of interschool interaction (Celsus, Numenius, St. Justin, Amelius and Porphyry) given in the article not only in diachronic, but also in synchronic aspect, have allowed us to question the necessity of retaining the term "Neoplatonism", as well as the cliché about the closedness of the Roman Neoplatonic school of the third century.

Keywords

Late Antique philosophy, Neoplatonism, Middle Platonism, historiographical stamps, J. Brooker, Plotinus,

References

1. Albrecht M. von, et al. (2002) Jamblich, Pythagoras: Legende — Lehre — Lebensgestaltung. Darmstadt.
2. Annas J. (1999) Platonic Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca, London.
3. Becker M. (ed.) (2013) Eunapios aus Sardes: Biographien über Philosophen und Sophisten. Stuttgart.
4. Brisson L., Segonds A. Ph. (eds) (1966) Jamblique. Vie de Pythagore. Paris.
5. Brittain Ch. (2019) “Plato and Platonism”, in G. Fine (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Plato (2nd ed.), Oxford, pp. 530–541.
6. Burnyeat M. F. (2005) “Platonism in the Bible: Numenius of Apamea on ‹Exodus› and Eternity”, in R. Salles (ed.) Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics in Ancient Thought. Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji, Oxford, pp. 143–169.
7. Catana L. (2005) “The Concept “System of Philosophy”: The Case of Jacob Brucker’s Historiography of Philosophy”. History and Theory, vol. 44 (1), pp. 72–90.
8. Catana L. (2013) “Changing Interpretations of Plotinus: The 18th-Century Introduction of the Concept of a ‘System of Philosophy’”. International Journal of Platonic Tradition, vol. 7 (1), pp. 50–98.
9. Catana L. (2013) “The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism”. Apeiron, vol. 46/2, pp. 166–200.
10. Catana L. (2019) Late Ancient Platonism in Eighteenth-Century German Thought. Cham.
11. De Vogel C. J. (1985) “Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?”. Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 39 (1), pp. 1–62.
12. Dillon J. (1996) The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 B. C. to A. D. 220. New York.
13. Dillon J. (2009) “St John in Amelius’ Seminar”, in P. Vassilopoulou, S. R. L. Clark (eds) Late Antique Epistemology: Other Ways to Truth, Great Britain, pp. 30-43.
14. Dörrie H. (1972) “Une exégèse néoplatonicienne du Prologue de l’Évangile de saint Jean (Amélius chez Eusèbe)”, in Épektasis: mélanges patristiques off erts au cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris, pp. 75–87.
15. Dörrie H. (1981) “Die Andere Theologie”. Theologie und Philosophie, vol. 56 (1), pp. 1–46.
16. Edwards M. (ed.) (2000) Neoplatonic Saints: the Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students. Liverpool.
17. Gerson L. P. (ed.). (2010) The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, vol. 1. Cambridge.
18. Hager F. P. (1983) “Zur Geschichte, Problematik und Bedeutung des Begriff es ʽNeuplatonismusʼ”. Diotima, Bd. 11, pp. 98–110.
19. Jerphagnon L. (1990) “Les sous-entendu anti-chrétiens de la Vita Plotini ou l’évangile de Plotin selon Porphyre”. Museum helveticum, vol. XLVII, pp. 41–52.
20. Kristeller P. O. (1943) The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino. New York.
21. Kudryavcev O. F. (2018) Florentijskaya Platonovskaya akademiya. Ocherk istorii duhovnoj zhizni renessansnoj Italii [Plato’s Academy in Florence. Essays on the history of the spiritual life of Renaissance Italy]. Moscow, 2018 (in Russian).
22. Meinhardt H. (1984) “Neuplatonismus”, in J. Ritter (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, vol. 6, Basel; Stuttgart, col. 754–756.
23. Mesyac S. V. (2008) “Yamvlih” [Yamblichus], in Antichnaya filosofiya: Enciklopedicheskij slovar’ [Ancient Philosophy: An Encyclopedic Dictionary], Moscow, pp. 837–848 (in Russian).
24. Miller P. C. (1983) Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley.
25. Rodríguez T. (2015) “Basta con desechar la categoría “neoplatonismo” para rehabilitar a los neoplatónicos?”. Signos Filosóficos, vol. XVII, no. 33, pp. 8–27.
26. Saffrey A. D. (1992) “Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin?”, in L. Brisson (éd.) Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Etudes d’introduction, texte grecque etc., vol. II, Paris, pp. 31–64.
27. Schneider J. (1998) “Das Eklektizismus-Problem der Philosophiegeschichte”, in W. Schmidt- Biggemann, Th. Stammen (eds) Jacob Brucker (1696–1770): Philosoph und Historiker der europäischen Aufklärung, Berlin, pp. 135–158.
28. Sedley D. (1997) “Plato’s Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary Tradition”, in J. Barnes, M. Griffin (eds) Philosophia Togata II: Plato and Aristotle at Rome, Oxford, pp. 110–129.
29. Shichalin Yu. (2013) “The Traditional View of Late Platonism as a Self-contained System”, in M. Vinzent (ed.) Studia Patristica, vol. LXII. Papers presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2011, vol. 10: The Genres of Late Antique Literature, pp. 3–9.
30. Shichalin Yu. A. (2000) Istoriya antichnogo platonizma v institucional’nom aspekte [The History of Ancient Platonism in the Institutional Aspect]. Moscow (in Russian).
31. Simmons M. B. (1997) “The Function of Oracles in the Pagan-Christian Confl ict during the Age of Diocletian: the Case of Arnobius and Porphyry”, in E. A. Livingstone (ed.) Studia Patristica, vol. XXXI, Leuven, pp. 349–356.
32. Stamatellos G. (2007) Plotinus and the Presocratics. A Philosophical study of Presocratic Influence in Plotinus’ Enneads. Albany.
33. Tardieu M. (1992) “Les gnostiques dans la Vie de Plotin”, in: L. Brisson (ed.) Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, Etudes d’introduction, texte grecque etc., vol. II, Paris, pp. 503–546.
34. Zeyer K. (2012) “Neuplatonismusrezeption im Umfeld der deutschen Idealisten — eine Recherche mit Blick auf Schelling und Cusanus”. Verbum, vol. 14, pp. 61–81.
35. Zueva E. V. (2011) Vliyanie pereskazannyh dialogov Platona na literaturnuyu formu “Dialoga s Trifonom Iudeem” sv. Iustina Filosofa [The infl uence of Plato’s retold dialogues on the literary form of St. Justin the Philosopher’s Dialogue with Tryphonus Judaeus]. Moscow (in Russian).

Information about the author

Soloviev Roman

Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0833-0624;
Email: solorom@gmail.com.