Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

What Is an “Ideological Emendation” (Really)? Taurus T27 and Middle Platonist Philologia Philosophica

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Méthexis

The aim of this paper is to deeply rethink the traditional notion of “ideological emendation”. By taking Taurus T27 as a test-case, I shall emphasise that Taurus’ intervention on Timaeus 27c5 is the result of a conjecture, and that such an emendation meets the requirements for a philological conjecture on Plato’s text. Indeed, Taurus’ fragment, which is usually taken as a typical example of “ideological emendation”, only reflects an effort to recover what Plato actually wrote, and is nothing but a textual emendation. Accordingly, the ideological core of such an emendation is what must lie at the basis of any conjecture, that is an attempt to re-establish (what is assumed to be) Plato’s text in accordance with his consistent doctrine.

Affiliations: 1: Durham University, uk


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

1. Baltes M. (1976). Die Weltentstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreteni , Leiden.
2. Carlini A. (1987). ‘"Platone e le interpolazioni dottrinali in Gregorio di Nissa"’. In: aa.vv. Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte , Urbino, i 465473.
3. Carlini A., (2012). ‘"La tradizione manoscritta del Timeo"’. In: Celia F.,; Ulacco A. (eds.), Il Timeo: esegesi greche, arabe, latine , Pisa, 123.
4. Dillon J. (1973). Iamblichi Chalcidensis In Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta , Leiden.
5. Dillon J. (1977). The Middle Platonists , London.
6. Dillon J. (1989). ‘"Tampering with the Timaeus: Ideological Emendations in Plato, with Special Reference to the Timaeus"’, American Journal of Philology ,Vol 110: 5072.
7. Dorandi T. (2010). ‘"“Editori” antichi di Platone"’, Antiquorum Philosophia , Vol 4: 161174.
8. Dörrie H.,, Baltes M. (eds.), (1993). Der Platonismus in der Antike, Band iii. Der Platonismus im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert nach Christus , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.
9. Dörrie H.,, Baltes M. (1998). Der Platonismus in der Antike, Band V. Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Platonische Physik (im antiken Verständnis) ii , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.
10. Ferrari F. (1998). ‘"Galeno interprete del Timeo"’, Museum Helveticum , Vol 55: 1434.
11. Ferrari F. (1999). ‘"Platone, Tim. 35a1-6 in Plutarco, An. procr. 1012b-c: Citazione ed esegesi"’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie , Vol 142: 326339.
12. Ferrari F. (2001). ‘"La funzione dell’esegesi testuale nel medioplatonismo: il caso del Timeo"’, Athenaeum , Vol 89: 525574.
13. Ferrari F., (2015). ‘"Lucio Calveno Tauro e l’interpretazione didascalica della cosmogenesi del Timeo"’. In: Cardullo L.,; Iozzia D. (eds.), Bellezza e Virtù. Studi in onore di Maria Barbanti , Catania, 307319.
14. Gignac F.T. (1981). A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods , Milano.
15. Gioè A. (1997). ‘"Aspetti dell’esegesi medioplatonica: la manipolazione e l’adattamento delle citazioni"’, Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei’, s.ix, vii : 287309.
16. Gioè A. (2002). Filosofi medioplatonici del secondo secolo d.C. , Napoli.
17. Jonkers G. (2017). The Textual Tradition of Plato’s Timaeus and Critias , Leiden-Boston.
18. Karamanolis G. (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry , Oxford.
19. Kirk G.S. (1985). The Iliad. A Commentary. Volume i: books 1–4 , Cambridge.
20. Lakmann M.-L. (1995). Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius , Leiden-New York-Köln.
21. Lapini W., (2015). ‘"Philological Observations and Approaches to Language in the Philosophical Context"’. In: Montanari F.,; Matthaios S.,; Rengakos A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Scholarship , Leiden-Boston, 10121056.
22. Männlein-Roberts I. (2001). Longin. Philologe un Philosoph. Eine Interpretation der erhaltenen Zeugnisse , München-Leipzig.
23. Mansfeld J. (1994). Prolegomena. Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author, or a Text , Leiden-New York-Köln.
24. Montana F., (2015). ‘"Hellenistic Scholarship"’. In Montanari F.,; Matthaios S.,; Rengakos A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Scholarship , Leiden-Boston, 60183.
25. Montanari F., (1998). ‘"Zenodotus, Aristarchus and the Ekdosis of Homer"’. In: Most G. (ed.), Editing Texts-Texte edieren , Göttingen, 121.
26. Montanari F., (2002). ‘"Alexandrian Homeric Philology. The Form of the Ekdosis and the Variae Lectiones"’. In: Reichel M.,; Rengakos A. (eds.), Epea Pteroenta. Beiträge zur Homerforschung , Stuttgart, 119140.
27. Montanari F., (2011). ‘"Correcting a Copy, Editing a Text. Alexandrian Ekdosis and Papyri"’. In Montanari F.,; Pagani L. (eds.), From Scholars to Scholia. Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship , New York-Berlin, 116.
28. Montanari F., (2015). ‘"Ekdosis. A Product of Ancient Scholarship"’. In Montanari F.,; Matthaios S.,; Rengakos A. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Ancient Scholarship , Leiden-Boston, 641672.
29. Most G., (forthcoming). ‘"Postface"’. In Keller A.,; Chemla K. (eds.), Shaping the Sciences of the Ancient World. Text Criticism, Critical Editions and Translations of Ancient and Medieval Scholarly Texts (18th-20th Centuries) , Heidelberg-Berlin.
30. Opsomer J., (2004). ‘"Plutarch’s De animae Procreatione in Timaeo. Manipulation or search for consistency?"’. In: Adamson P.,; Baltussen H.,; Stone M.W.F. (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Latin and Arabic Commentaries, 2004, 137162.
31. Pagani L., & Perrone S., (2012). ‘"Le ekdoseis antiche di Omero nei papiri"’. In: Bastianini G.,; Casanova A. (eds.), I Papiri omerici. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze 9–10 giugno 2011 , Firenze, 97124.
32. Petrucci F.M., (2012a). ‘"La tradizione indiretta dell’ultima pagina dell’Epinomide"’. In: Alesse F.,; Ferrari F. (eds.), Epinomide. Studi sull’opera e la sua ricezione , Napoli, 295340.
33. Petrucci F.M. (2012b). Teone di Smirne. Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium , Sankt Augustin.
34. Petrucci F.M. (2014). ‘"Le témoignage du deuxième livre du Commentaire au Timée de Proclus sur la forme des arguments médio-platoniciens au sujet de la genèse du monde"’, Revue des études Grecques ,Vol 127: 331375.
35. Petrucci F.M. (2015a). ‘"Adrastus on Aristotle’s Cosmology. The Peripatetic Exegesis of De caelo and Metaphysics Λ"’, Rhizomata , Vol 3: 149199.
36. Petrucci F.M. (2015b). ‘"Letteralismo e cosmogenesi eternalista nel Medioplatonismo: il caso di Alcinoo, Didaskalikòsxiv 169, 32–35"’. Antiquorum Philosophia , Vol 9: 111126.
37. Petrucci F.M. (2016a). ‘"Argumentative Strategies for Interpreting Plato’s Cosmogony: Taurus and the Issue of Literalism in Antiquity"’. Phronesis , Vol 61: 4359.
38. Petrucci F.M., (2016b). ‘"ἀντέχεσθαι τῶν ῥημάτων: the Neoplatonic Criticism of Atticus’ Exegesis of Plato’s Cosmogony"’. In: Dangel T.,; O’Brien C.,; Halfwassen J. (eds.), Seele und Materie im Neuplatonismus , Heidelberg, 75103.
39. Petrucci, F.M. (2017). Wie man eine Platonstelle deutet. Exegetischen Strukturen im Mittelplatonismus’, Philologus 2017 [AoP, doi 10.1515/phil-2017-0019]
40. Petrucci F.M. (2018). Taurus of Beirut. The Other Side of Middle Platonism . London-New York.
41. Prächter K. (1934). s.v. Tauros (n.11). In: RE V A 1 coll. 5868.
42. Puglia E. (1988). "Demetrio Lacone". Aporie testuali ed esegetiche in Epicuro (PHerc. 1012) , Napoli.
43. Reis B. (1999). Der Platoniker Albinos und sein sogennanter Prologos. Wiesbaden.
44. Sedley D., (2013). ‘"Cicero and the Timaeus"’. In: Schofield M. (ed.), Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the First Century bc , Cambridge, 187205.
45. Sorabji R. (1983). Time, Creation and Continuum , London.
46. Tarrant H. (1996). ‘"Platonic Interpretation in Aulus Gellius"’. Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies ,Vol 37: 173193.
47. Tulli M., (2012). ‘"La tradizione indiretta del Timeo"’. In: Celia F.,; Ulacco A. (eds.), Il Timeo: esegesi greche, arabe, latine , Pisa, 2556.
48. Verrycken K. (1988). ‘"Porphyry, In Timaeum fr. xxxvii (Philoponus, De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum 148, 9–23)"’, L’antiquité Classique , Vol 57: 282289.
49. Verrycken K. (1997). ‘"Philoponus’ Interpretation of Plato’s Cosmogony"’. Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale , Vol 8: 269318.
50. Whittaker J. (1969). ‘"Timaeus 27d5 ff"’. Phoenix , Vol 23: 181185.
51. Whittaker J. (1973). ‘"Textual Comments on Timaeus 27c-d"’. Phoenix , Vol 27: 387391.
52. Whittaker J., (1989). ‘"The Value of the Indirect Tradition in the Establishment of Greek Philosophical Text, or the Art of Misquotation"’. In: Grant J.N. (ed.), Editing Greek and Roman Texts , New York, 6395.

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Méthexis — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation