Cardinal Bessarion (1408–1472), in the second chapter of the first book of his influential work In calumniatorem Platonis, attempted to reply to Georgios Trapezuntios’ (1396–1474) criticism against Plato in the Comparatio Philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis. Bessarion investigates why the Athenian philosopher maintained, in several dialogues, that the sacred truths should not be communicated to the general public and argued in favor of the value of oral transmission of knowledge, largely based on his theory about the cognitive processes. Recently, Fr. Bessarion (...) Kouotsis has argued that Cardinal Bessarion’s reasoning draws primarily on the “Disciplina Arcani”, i.e., the rule of secrecy, which was an established practice of the Early Christian Church, aimed at protecting and preserving the core elements of the religion from outsiders. While I find Kouotsis’ approach interesting and thought-provoking—for instance, the idea that Bessarion’s argumentation was likely influenced by Eastern Christian views on the rule of secrecy—I intend, first of all, to discuss why Bessarion did not explicitly mention it. Moreover, I would like to argue that Bessarion’s good knowledge of the long Platonic tradition and Eastern mysticism, encompassing both pagan and Christian elements, should also be considered a significant source. Furthermore, I would like to question Kouotsis’ implicit argument that Bessarion’s views were dominated by his training in Orthodox theology and discuss the possibility that Pletho’s (1355–1454) teaching was the obvious influence for Bessarion’s defense of secrecy. After all, we should bear in mind that Anastos has already pointed out Pletho’s reverence for the rule of secrecy. Finally, I would like to support that Bessarion, in the specific text, focused predominantly on the epistemological and cognitive aspects of oral teaching, resorting to the rule of secrecy only to enhance his views. (shrink)

In 2005, an Egyptian dialogue’s editio princeps was published, named by its editors the ‘Book of Thoth’. While prior research on the relation between this dialogue and the Corpus Hermeticum could not identify far reaching parallels, another relation has not been taken into account yet: the relation to Plato’s critique of writing in the Phaedrus. The present article argues that very likely the Book of Thoth forms a source of the Platonic text, to which Plato responds with a diametrically opposed (...) criticism. To underline the argument, literal and thematic parallels are pointed out in a first step. Then, secondly, the focus is put on the order of the two texts. Finally, a systematic comparison between the Platonic and the Egyptian understanding of scripture underscores the argument. Thematic parallels and literal correspondences are numerous and therefore suggest excluding a similarity by accident: In the Book of Thoth we grasp a concrete Egyptian source of Plato for the first time. (shrink)

La « lecture naïve », ou « ordinaire », lecture de divertissement, empathique, lors de laquelle le lecteur s’investit émotionnellement dans le texte, s’identifie aux personnages, porte des jugements moraux sur eux, est souvent considérée, dans les études littéraires, comme illégitime et inauthentique : on lui oppose la « vraie » lecture, ou encore « lecture savante », distanciée, dans laquelle le lecteur ne cède pas à « l’illusion référentielle », mais considère le texte comme une machine à produire des (...) effets et n’ayant pas de fin extérieure à lui-même. On attribue souvent à Platon la paternité de cette méfiance envers l’illusion référentielle. Il s’agit de montrer que se dégage du Phèdre une conception de la lecture qui est bien plutôt du côté de la lecture « naïve », et, par conséquent, une invitation à lire les Dialogues en « lecteur naïf », qui est aussi, pour Platon, le lecteur véritablement philosophe. (shrink)

Die bis heute maßgebliche Piatondeutung Schlegels wurzelt im Ideenkreis der Bewußtseins- und Bildungsgeschichte des neuzeitlichen Subjekts. Ihre Genesis erklärt ihren Erfolg in einer sich gern an Piaton spiegelnden Moderne, erweist sie aber als historisch inadäquat. Der gegenwärtige Wechsel vom romantischen zum postromantischen Platon-Paradigma wird dadurch argumentativ gestützt.

Name der Zeitschrift: Rhizomata Jahrgang: 5 Heft: 2 Seiten: 113-147.

The importance of memory as a metaphysical concept throughout the history of thought was first discovered by Plato and elaborated in his famous though controversial doctrine of recollection. Various myths and metaphors in the dialogues Phaedrusand Theaetetus refer to the divine origin of memory and the a priori nature of true ‘scientific’ knowledge, as different from the ‘second-hand’ knowledge acquired from external sources, as well as to the function of earthly beauty, which is to remind the soul of the eternal, (...) transcendent beauty of truth itself. The philosophical practice of recollection aims – as we read in the Phaedo– at turning away the mind from beguiling sensuous appeareances. It is an ascetic self-purification finally culminating in death, which is but the liberation of the soul from the bodily impediment, so that it can fly back to its homeland to be reunited with its divine origin, the transcendent Good. This is the true destiny of mankind. This divine origin is vaguely remembered and longed for, thanks to the divine gift of memory, the metaphysical place where heaven meets the earth and – as Saint Augustine put it – the seeker can find God. (shrink)

Over the past century or so, questions concerning the word ‘meaning’ have been understandably prominent in the field of the philosophy of language. There is, however, a historical aspect to the debate that is of especial interest to literary critics – the fact that verbs and expressions of meaning have been applied to different kinds of things in a number of languages spanning the western literary tradition. I shall introduce the topic by focussing on the Latin expressionsibi uelleand on how (...) Roman authors exploited its ambiguities for the purposes of humour (§§ I and II). I shall then move on to a discussion of a later Latin phrase familiar from the pages of the Virgilian commentator Servius,hoc uult dicere, and argue that the assumptions we have about expressions of meaning may lead us to adopt a particular interpretation of it (§§ III and IV). In the final part of the paper (§§ V, VI and VII) I shall proceed to a discussion of why it is important for modern literary critics to pay attention to how they use verbs such as ‘to mean’: I argue that the different functions of the verb facilitate a personification of the text that allows us to equivocate about the role of the author. (shrink)