Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Volume XXIV

410 Pages·2003·16.475 MB·English

by  David N. Sedley

OXFORD
STUDIES IN
ANCIENT
PHILCTSOPHY
VOLUME XXIV
SUMMER 2003
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy is a
volume of original articles on all aspects of
ancient philosophy. The articles may be of
substantial length, and include critical notices
of major books. Aristotle and the Stoics
receive particular attention in this volume.
Editor: David Sedley, Laurence Professor of
Ancient Philosophy, University of Cambridge
‘standard reading among specialists in
ancient philosophy’
Brad Inwood, Bryn Mawr Classical Review
OXFORD STUDIES
IN ANCIENT
PHILOSOPHY
EDITOR: DAVID SEDLEY
VOLUME XXIV
SUMMER 2003
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXPORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford 0x2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the Univershy of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education byj^ublishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
© Except where otherwise stated, O.xford University Press, 2002
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2003
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Oxford studies in ancient philosophy.—
Vol. xxiv (2003).—Oxford: Clarendon Press;
New York: Oxford University Press, 1983—
V.; 22 cm. Annual.
I. Philosophy, Ancient—Periodicals.
/
B1.O9 180. 5—dc.19 84-645022
AACR 2 MARC-S
ISBN 0-19-926343-4
ISBN 0-19-926344-2 (Pbk.)
13579 10 8642
Typeset by John Was, Oxford
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
T. J. International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall
ADVISORY BOARD
Professor Jonathan Barnes, Universite de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris IV
Professor Michael Frede, Keble College, Oxford
Professor A. A. Long, University of California, Berkeley
Professor IMartha Nussbaum, University of Chicago
Professor Richard Sorabji, King’s College, University of London,
and Wolfson College, Oxford
Professor Gisela Striker, Harvard University
Contributions and books for review should be sent to the Editor,
Professor D. N. Sedley, Christ’s College, Cambridge, CB2 3BU, UK.
He can be contacted by e-mail on [email protected].
Contributors are asked to observe the ‘Notes for Contributors to
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy’, printed at the end of this
volume.
Up-to-date contact details, the latest version of Notes to Con¬
tributors, and publication schedules can be checked on the Oxford
Studies website:
www.oup.co.uk/philosophy/series/osap
' ‘VfORn
♦ H
q>V/;Oa ■/
'•
f
tr.
t '■_ ^ f'tj'f*** N*' J !..■»■« I- .‘‘ «- -> '■» i- . '
ir'jfiti. i ■ ‘ *• rv^.«
4
Ht# « « ’f«ir * .** .
n^AvtWiii V loassloi'T
^ ,vi>\V6'j Hot\!ia'H Wtft
»<‘»i-> :!)l}>fi« jvr**.— ’ I'*!'• '*■ 'iJ ■ *Mlj r -«» '
.Kiiib'J ^ bl4^< vW9iv«i <i-ii>o<(v MiRJb'ittUUKfntmO
3 ®3
.){!/ ab m» li»<u-'if ‘ <*i» ! t%I>fT ^t K»ooo »d n ■aH
t IVk ' .1 , T-
*4 4
,f (^ - . t i » If* . .
«*ifi io ad; 141 bainnq ,'«4<ia»i4»d*i invr-xiA »i4 otibiUfi baolxO
»•:•• ». Hwk ■ \) ' > ■
4*0 3 i>i cftioVl 1o. noiTdtBv.jiKii&i idi |y«ino-> aiBb-oJ-qU
'*tii rto brt93i^b. jrt ,1^ nrul*»»Jdtfq hiw ^loiudhn
^ ^ ;aitiKb»w v*dutlZ
... * • j
ft B>». I I. * vrfqrxol I rfq vrfi»r>>4| uo .jrww
* * i% 4 ^ 4
’ -
■?K
»■•'»♦ 1
• «- ? V • *
•j i-j» *•♦<
'v
it
►.>*. - >
e
CONTENTS
Empedocles on the Ultimate Symmetry of the World i
SIMON TREPANIER
Socrates and Protagoras on Virtue 59
DENIS O’BRIEN
Aristotle’s Natural Teleology and Metaphysics of Life 133
MARC PAVLOPOULOS
Themistius and Spontaneous Generation in Aristotle’s
Metaphysics 183
DEVIN HENRY
What Does Aristotle Mean by Priority in Substance? 209
STEPHEN MAKIN
Chrysippus’ Puzzle about Identity 239
JOHN BOWIN
Determinism and Recurrence in Early Stoic Thought 253
RICARDO SALLES
Cosmological Ethics in the Timaeus and Early Stoicism 273
gAbor betegh
A Puzzle in Stoic Ethics 303
RACHEL BARNEY
Sextus and External World Scepticism 341
GAIL FINE
Index Locorum
387
r?
ft r/.:rn^o'j
iilinV/ -^drlo Ti$vwn/ir. 'iiAftiiilU od) w wliobaqiji^
7 no Janoijitto?*! bnu t^isioofi
‘• .
/-..iitia'o iiii^aa
inf 1 ytiJ \o «:»l«v4t|^1/ bmj intnsX «’»hoiiiriA
UAaU
HOjIJuTOj /A*?
ni fioo«ti»n>ii <i<nfMTfltn<»q^ hnw tiiiiajniirtT
Yft^air Hivin'
^rMiBtddu^ ni iimih^ <d n>i‘»r4 >lioiid‘iA e^ioCl mtVN
VIHKif. ViaHM3T» ’
^ <iiuubi. ipikIk '4u«iqnyi#0
KIV/(Aa HHrn
4 •'
tct irtjjuafTr airtiS ni •rvddTiu'jsn bnc rfi-dnitnwjtiCi
eHJ.lA^ftOMAa’H
<1?
rtiMjifJr? bnn un5.W\ 'tdi r»i nlrfiST t»9{^go(on>iu>D
M0Tr3«» fl( aAo
tuHiH oioJ^ iii -lixiOiT. A
<lV>«Atl .4aH'AAfl
4 rnii>iin^3<^ UHoW i«(n9tx3 hnu «mx9<i
« -t
3Hn jun ^
T^E i«*>n<rvod x>V>«\.
I
'V
.'ll
■’A:. . jUs I'.'.i,••- i’'
EMPEDOCLES ON THE ULTIMATE
SYMMETRY OE THE WORLD
SIMON TREPANIER
I. Introduction; L’Empedocle de Strasbourg
The modern study of Empedocles entered a new era in 1999, with
the publication by Alain Martin and Olivier Primavesi of a sensa¬
tional new text, the Strasbourg papyrus. ‘ The papyrus, dated to the
first or second century ad and assembled from many smaller pieces,
comprises six continuous sections, of which four are of significant
size. These sections, called ensembles by the editors, preserve a total
of 74 full or partial new hexameter lines, while a further 20 coin¬
cide with lines previously known, leaving no doubts concerning the
identification of the work as Empedoclean.^ The papyrus is also, to
all evidence, a text of Empedocles, not a quotation, and is thus the
first instance of direct textual transmission of that author.^
{a) The three thetas
Among the issues raised by this new material, that which so far
has generated the most scholarly controversy centres on a difficult
© Simon Trepanier 2003
I would like to express my gratitude to Professors Brad Inwood and David Sedley
for their helpful comments on and constructive criticisms of earlier drafts of this
paper.
‘ A. Martin and O, Primavesi, L’Empedocle de Strasbourg (P. Strasb. gr. Inv. 1665-
1666): introduction, edition et commentaire [M-P] (Berlin and New York, 1999).
^ The first 5 lines of ensemble a overlap with lines 31-5 of fr. 17 (H. Diels and
W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edn. [DK] (3 vols.; Berlin, 1951),
vol. i, no. 31); ensemble b 2 and 4 = B 76, 3 and 2 DK; ensemble c 2-8=B 20 DK;
and ensemble d 5-6 = B 139 DK (see n. 7 for details). In M-P’s notational system the
bold letters a to h stand for different ensembles, (i) or (ii) for column numbers, the
lines being then numbered by column.
^ This new material now brings the number of extant verses in the Empedoclean
corpus to a fairly substantial total of 524 lines and a few phrases, but if one disregards
IS of the papyrus’ most severely mutilated new lines, where less than two words are
visible, the total is closer to around 509.
Simon Trepanier
2
textual problem. The debate turns on what to make of a previ¬
ously unknown textual variant revealed by the papyrus in two, per¬
haps three, instances of an otherwise familiar Erppedoclean turn of
speech, which I will call.the ‘unification formula’. This formula, a
recurring poetic phrase in Empedocles’ poetry, is one of a number
of such formulae coined by Empedocles in a creative adaptation of
epic tradition to his own didactic ends. As found most conspicu¬
ously in fragments 17, 20, 21, and 26, the formula is one part of a
frequently deployed poetic motif, usually found as two paired lines,
symmetrically contrasting the unification formula (A) in the first
line with a separation formula (B) in the second.'* Most commonly,
the two formulae depict the contrasting influence that Empedo¬
cles’ two main cosmic/psychological powers, Love and Strife, exert
upon the four elements. Love causing them to unite or come to¬
gether, and Strife driving them apart. Almost without fail, in the
(A) portion of the motif Empedocles employs the verb owepxofjiaL
to describe the process of unification, e.g. 31 B 17. 7-8 DK:
aXXore p.ev ^iXorpTL avvepxofiev’ els iv airavra
aXXore S’ av hlx’ eKaara (ftopevp^eva NeiKeos exOet.
at one time through Love all coming together into one,
at another in turn each carried apart by the hatred of Strife.
The novelty of the papyrus is an intriguing variant in that verb in
two, perhaps three, places: a (i) 6, c 3, and then, less certainly, at
a (ii) 17. In these new passages, instead of the neuter plural par¬
ticiple, the only known form throughout the entire indirect textual
tradition, the copyist has written a 6 instead of a v at the end of
the verb, transforming it from a neuter plural participle to a first
person plural. But in two of those three cases, a (i) 6 and c 3, a
second hand has corrected the copyist’s 9 back to a v, turning the
verb into the more familiar (to us) participial form.^
M-P, presented with such a choice, in both cases prefer the first
hand’s text. In their view, the variant is too systematic to allow the
“ For a fuller account of this poetic motif and its philosophical significance, see
D. W. Graham, ‘Symmetry in the Empedoclean Cycle’ [‘Symmetry’], Classical
Quarterly, ns (1988), 297-312.
^ In the first, a (i) 6, this correction is unmistakable, whereas in c 3 the papyrus is
too damaged to reveal the actual letter, but the traces of a correction above the still
legible 8 indicate the summits of two vertical lines, suitable for N or H. For c 3 see
p. 142 and pi. V.