Skip to main content
×
Home

Clement of Alexandria on Aristotle's (Cosmo-)Theology (Clem. Protrept. 5.66.4)

  • A. P. Bos (a1)
Abstract

In this paper I will reconsider the doxographical text about Aristotle in Clement of Alexandria's Protrepticus 5.66.4:

οὐδ⋯ν δ⋯ οἶμαι χαλεπ⋯ν ⋯ντα⋯θα γεν⋯μενος κα⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯κ το⋯ Περιπ⋯του μνησθ⋯ναι· κα⋯ ⋯ γε τ⋯ς αἱρ⋯σεως πατ⋯ρ, τ⋯ν ὅλων οὐ νο⋯σας τ⋯ν πατ⋯ρα, τ⋯ν καλο⋯μενον ‘ὕπατον’ ψυχ⋯ν εἶναι το⋯ π⋯ντος οἴεται· τουτ⋯στι το⋯ κ⋯σμου τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν θε⋯ν ὑπολαμβ⋯νων αὐτ⋯ς αὑτῷ περιπε⋯ρεται. ⋯ γ⋯ρ τοι μ⋯χρι τ⋯ς σελ⋯νης αὐτ⋯ς διορ⋯ζων τ⋯ν πρ⋯νοιαν, ἔπειτα τ⋯ν κ⋯σμον θε⋯ν ⋯γο⋯μενος περιτρ⋯πεται, τ⋯ν ἄμοιρον θεο⋯ θε⋯ν δογματ⋯ζων.

Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. i. Protrepticus und Paedagogus, ed. Stählin O. (GCS, Leipzig 1905, repr. Berlin 1972), pp. 50–1. Clement of Alexandria with an English Translation, by Butterworth G. W. (London, 1919; repr. 1960), p. 150; Clément d' Alexandrie, le Protreptique, introd., transl. and notes by Mondésert C. (Paris, 1949), p. 131.

2 Festugière A. J., L' Idéal religieux des grecs et l'Évangile (Paris, 1932), pp. 221–63. Runia D. T. took this study as his point of departure in ‘Festugière Revisited: Aristotle in the Greek Patres’, VC 43 (1989), 134.

3 Festugière A. J., op. cit., pp. 225–32. Cf. id., La Révélation d' Hermès Trismégiste, ii (Paris, 1949), p. 478. For a detailed discussion of the De mundo, see ibid., pp. 460–518.

4 Moraux P., D' Aristote à Bessarion: trois exposés sur l'histoire et la transmission de l'Aristotélisme grec (Québec, 1970), p. 41.

5 Moraux P., op. cit., p. 55; cf. p. 10. See also Moraux P., ‘Diogène Laërce et le Peripatos’, Elenchos 7 (1986), 245–94, p. 281.

6 Arist . M.A. 4, 700al, quoting Il. 8.20–2.

7 Cf. Aristotele: Trattato sul cosmo per Alessandro, transl. with Greek text, introd. and comm. by Reale G. (Naples, 1974), who, after P. Gohlke, is the first to defend its authenticity. His position is accepted in Bos A. P., Aristoteles, Over de kosmos, introd., transl., notes (Meppel, 1989); id., ‘Supplementary Notes on the De mundo’, Hermes 119 (1991), 312–32. A date in the first century B.C. or A.D. is again vigorously defended for the De mundo by Moraux P., Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, ii (Berlin, 1984), pp. 582 and Gottschalk H. B., ‘Aristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century’, in ANRW, 36.2 (Berlin, 1987), 1079–1174, pp. 1132–9. For a discussion of their positions see Bos A. P., ‘Considerazioni sul “De mundo” e analisi critica delle tesi di Paul Moraux’, Riv. di Filos. Neo-scolastica 82 (1990), 587606. An important contribution to the discussion is given in Schenkeveld D. M, ‘Language and Style of the Aristotelian De mundo in Relation to the Question of its Inauthenticity’, Elenchos 12 (1991), 221–55. Mansfeld J., ‘Two attributions’, CQ 41 (1991), pp. 541–4; Holwerda D., ‘Text kritisches und Exegetisches zur pseudo-Aristotelischen Schrift περ⋯ το⋯ κ⋯σμου’, Mnemosyne 46 (1993), pp. 4653.

8 Mu. 6. 397b24–27: τ⋯ν μ⋯ν οὖν ⋯νωτ⋯τω κα⋯ πρώτην ἔδραν αὐτ⋯ς ἔλαχεν, ὕπατ⋯ς τε δι⋯ το⋯το ὠν⋯μασται, κατ⋯ τ⋯ν ποιητ⋯ν ‘⋯κροτ⋯τῃ κορυϕῇ’ το⋯ σ⋯μπαντος ⋯γκαθιδρυμ⋯νος οὐρανο⋯.

9 In the small work De mundo, Reale G., op. cit., p. 351, draws attention to eight quotations of Homer. In view of what follows below, I believe there are nine.

10 Thus W. L. Lorimer; J. Tricot; P. Gohlke; D.-J. Furley; G. Reale, ad loc.

11 Regen F., ‘Die Residenz des persischen Grosskönigs und der Palast des Menelaos’, Hermes 100 (1972), 206–7. In the text of Il. 5 there is a combination of ‘the loftiest crest’ (754) with ‘Zeus, the Highest’ (756).

12 Pl. Tim. 41a7ff. Cf. Philo , Aet. 13. Philo's reference in ch. 16 to Aristotle's discussion of Plato's views must have been based on Aristotle's lost works (pace R. Arnaldez, ad loc.).

13 Cf. Lévêque P., Aurea catena Homeri: une étude sur l'allégorie grecque (Paris, 1959).

14 PL Tht. 153c9.

15 Eustathius , In Horn. II. (ed. van der Valk M., Leiden, ii, 1976), p. 695.2ff. and p. 695.9ff.

16 Arist . M.A. 4, 699b37, where Il. 8.21–2 and 20 are quoted: ⋯λλ' οὐκ ἅν ⋯ρὑσαιτ' ⋯ξ οὐραν⋯θεν πεδ⋯ονδε | Z⋯ν' ὕπατον π⋯ντων, οὐδ' εἰ μ⋯λα πολλ⋯ κ⋯μοιτε· | π⋯ντες δ' ⋯ξ⋯πτερθε θεο⋯ π⋯σα⋯ τε θ⋯αιναι (the Homeric text reads Z⋯ν ὕπατον μ⋯στωρ' in line 22). Cf. Aristotle's De motu anim., text with transl., comm. and interpretative essays by Nussbaum M. C. (Princeton, 1978), pp. 320–1. Nussbaum sees in this text a veiled polemic with Plato , Tht. 153c9: in his reference there to ‘the golden cord’, Plato had disregarded the figure of Zeus, who is central in Homer's picture.

17 Theophr. Metaph. 5b15, quoting Il. 8.24.

18 Line 22 should be preferred to line 31 on account of the reference in Theophrastus. But see also Plut . Quaest. Plat. 9.

19 Cf. Bos A. P., ‘Supplementary Notes’, Hermes 119 (1991), 326–7.

20 Mu. 6, 397b11—12: εἰ κα⋯ μ⋯ δι' ⋯κριβε⋯ας, ⋯λλ' οὖν γε ὡς εἰς τυπώδη μ⋯θησιν. See also ch. 4, 394a8.

21 Cf. notes 3–5 above.

22 Cf. Arist . Metaph. Λ 9. 1074b15–35.

23 We find this view attributed to Aristotle by Tatian , Or. adv. Graecos 2; Athenagoras , Leg. 25; Hippolytus , Ref. 1.20, 22 and 7.14; Clement , Strom. 5.14; Origen , C. Cels. 1.21 and 3. 75; Eusebius , Praep. Ev. XV 5, 1; Gregory of Nazianzus , Or. 27.10; Epiphanius , Adv. Haer. 3. 2,9; Theodoretus, Graec. aff. 5.77.47 and 6.86.7; Ambrose, Off. 1.13.48; Chalcidius , In Tim. 248. Cf. A. P. Bos, Providentia Divina; The Theme of Divine ‘pronoia’ in Plato and Aristotle (Assen, 1976), p. 5; Runia D. T., ‘Festugière RevisitedVC 43 (1989), 134, p. 18.

24 See Ps.-Plut. Plac. 2.3; Stob . Ecloga 1.21. Cf. Diels H., Doxographi Graeci, p. 330. See also Diog. Laertius 5.32: τ⋯ν δ⋯ θε⋯ν ⋯σώματον ⋯π⋯ϕαινε, … διατε⋯νειν δ' αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν προνο⋯αν μ⋯χρι τ⋯ν οὐραν⋯ων κα⋯ εἶναι ⋯κ⋯νητον αὐτ⋯ν· τ⋯ δ' ⋯π⋯γεια κατ⋯ τ⋯ν πρ⋯ς τα⋯τα συμπ⋯θειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι and the commentary of Moraux P., Elenchos 7 (1986), 281. It is striking how easily scholars like Moraux (and before him Festugière) accept that the whole of antiquity took a completely wrong view of matters on such an important subject as the Aristotelian doctrine of divine Providence. For an entirely new analysis of the problem of ancient doxography, see Mansfeld J., ‘Doxography and Dialectic: The Sitz im Leben of the “Placita”’, in ANRW 36.4 (Berlin, 1990), 30573229; cf. Runia D. T., ‘Xenophanes on the Moon: A Doxographicum in Aëtius’, Phronesis 34 (1989), 245–69.

25 Cf. Arist . Philos. fr. 26 Ross, fr. 25. 1 Gigon.

26 Mu. 6. 397b27–32 (directly after the passage in which God is described as ὕπατος and enthroned on the ⋯κροτ⋯τῇ κορυϕῇ): μ⋯λιστα δ⋯ πως αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ς δυν⋯μεως ⋯πολα⋯ει τ⋯ πλησ⋯ον αὐτο⋯ σ⋯μα, κα⋯ ἔπειτα τ⋯ μετ' ⋯κεῖνο, κα⋯ ⋯ϕεξ⋯ς οὖτως ἄχρι τ⋯ν καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς τ⋯πων.Δι⋯ γ⋯ τε κα⋯ τ⋯ π⋯γ⋯ς⋯ ἔοικεν, ⋯ν ⋯ποστ⋯σει πλε⋯στῃ τ⋯ς ⋯κ θεο⋯ ⋯ντα ὠϕελε⋯ας, ⋯σθεν⋯ κα⋯ ⋯κατα⋯λληλα εἶναι και πολλ⋯ς μεστ⋯ ταραχ⋯ς. Cf. Lilla S., Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism (Oxford, 1971), p. 47 with n. 1.

27 Ibid. 397b32–398a4: οὐ μ⋯ν ⋯λλ⋯ καθ' ὅσον ⋯π⋯ π⋯ν διικνεῖσθαι π⋯ϕυκεν τ⋯ θεον, κα⋯ τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς ⋯μο⋯ως συμβα⋯νει τ⋯ τε ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯μ⋯ς, κατ⋯ τ⋯ ἔγγι⋯ν τε κα⋯ πορρωτ⋯ρω θεο⋯ εἶναι μ⋯λλον τε κα⋯ ἦττον ὠϕελε⋯ας μεταλαμβ⋯νοντα, κρεῖττον οὖν ὑπολαβεῖν, ὅ κα⋯ πρ⋯πον ⋯στ⋯ κα⋯ θε⋯ μ⋯λιστα ⋯ρμ⋯ζον, ὡς ⋯ ⋯ν οὐρανῷ δ⋯ναμις ⋯δρυμ⋯νη κα⋯ τοῖς πλεῖστον ⋯ϕεστηκ⋯σιν, … αἴτιος γ⋯νεται σωτηρ⋯ας, ….

28 With D.-J. Furley I reject the addition of ⋯π⋯ before τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς by W. L. Lorimer as misleading. Diogenes Laertius 5.32 expresses the same idea as the doxographical tradition in the Words: τ⋯ δ' ⋯π⋯γεια κατ⋯ τ⋯ν πρ⋯ς τα⋯τα συμπ⋯θειαν οỉκονομεῖσθαι.

29 Cf. Hermes 119 (1991), 327–8, where I argue that the passage τ⋯ς δ' εὐταξ⋯ας κατ⋯ συμβεβηκ⋯ς οὐ προηγουμ⋯νως μετ⋯χειν in the doxographical testimony indicates the right way to read Mu. 6. 397b33: κα⋯ τ⋯ καθ' ⋯μ⋯ς ⋯μο⋯ως συβα⋯νει τ⋯ τε ὑπ⋯ρ ⋯μ⋯ς.

30 Theophr . Metaph. 1. 4, 4b14; 1.5, 5al.

31 Theophr . Metaph. 5b13: ώς οὐ διικνουμ⋯νου το⋯ πρώτου.

32 Contrary to what Moraux P., op. cit. (1984), pp. 41–4 claims.

33 It is remarkable that Apuleius , De mundo 24 translates the Greek words δυν⋯μει χρώμενος ⋯τρ⋯τῳ (6. 397b23) as ‘quodam infatigabili providentia’. Elsewhere he uses ‘potestas’ for δ⋯ναμις.

34 Mu. 2. 392a29. It is noteworthy that the explanation for the presence of the order (τ⋯ξις) in the ethereal sphere posited in ch. 2, 392a32 is not given until the theological sixth chapter, 39`7b27–30, by means of the doctrine of divine dynamis.

35 Clem. Protr. 5.66.4: τ⋯ν καλο⋯μενον ‘ὕπατον’ ψυχ⋯ν εἶναι το⋯ π⋯ντος οἴεται· τουτ⋯στι το⋯ κ⋯σμου τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν θε⋯ν ὑπολαμβ⋯νων αὐτ⋯ς α⋯τῷ περιπε⋯ρεται.

36 Clem. Protr. 5.66.3: οὐδ⋯ μ⋯ν τοὺς ⋯π⋯ τ⋯ς Στο⋯ς παρελε⋯σομαι δι⋯ π⋯σης ὔλης κα⋯ δι⋯ τ⋯ς ⋯τιμοτ⋯της τ⋯ θεῖον δ⋯κειν λ⋯γοντας, ο⋯ καταισχ⋯νουσιν ⋯τεχν⋯ς τ⋯ν ϕιλοσοϕ⋯αν.

37 A forthcoming joint study on the doxographical tradition by J. Mansfeld and D. T. Runia will strongly emphasize this systematic approach. See also their preliminary studies mentioned above (n. 24).

38 Ps.-Plut. Placita 2.3.

39 Cf. von Arnim H., ‘Die Entstehung der Gotteslehre des Aristoteles’, SB Akad. W. Wien 212.5 (1931), 380; repr. in F. P. Hager, Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles (Darmstadt, 1969), 1–74; Guthrie W. K. C., ‘The Development of Aristotle's Theology’, CQ 27 (1933), 162–72; 28 (1934), 90–8; Moreau J., L'Ame du monde de Platon aux Stoïciens (Paris, 1939; Hildesheim, 19652), p. 122; Festugière A. J., La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, ii (Paris, 1949), pp. 221, 245, 258–9; Pépin J., Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne (Paris, 1964), p. 171: ‘Le dialogue De philosophia professait une théologie cosmique assez élaborée.’ Cf. also Rist J. M., The Mind of Aristotle: A Study in Philosophical Growth (Toronto, 1989), p. 15: Aristotle's dialogue De philosophia ‘denies a transcendent God and identifies the highest principle of the cosmos with an immanent World-mind’; and Runia D. T., art. cit. (1989), p. 19. This view was still held in Bos A. P., On the Elements: Aristotle's Early Cosmology (Assen, 1972) and id., Providentia divina (Assen, 1976).

40 See Bos A. P., Cosmic and Meta-cosmic Theology in Aristotle's Lost Dialogues (Leiden, 1989), p. 92, where it is pointed out that the criticism of Plato's doctrine of the creation of the world by a divine Demiurge in Aristotle's De philosophia must have gone together with criticism of the doctrine of the World-soul in the Timaeus, and that Aristotle's alternative of an uncreated and imperishable world suggested the notion of the divine fifth element, which took the place of the Platonic World-soul. For the actualization of its intellectual capacity, however, this divine substance was believed by Aristotle to be dependent on the effect of the pure, highest Intellect.

41 Clem. Strom. 1.28.176: ⋯ μ⋯ν οὖν κατ⋯ Μωυσ⋯α ϕιλοσοϕ⋯α τετραχῇ τ⋯μνεται, εἴς τε τ⋯⋯στορικ⋯ν κα⋯ τ⋯ κυρ⋯ως λεγ⋯μενον νομοθετικ⋯ν, ἄπερ ἂν εἴη τ⋯ς ἠθικ⋯ς πραγματε⋯ας ἴδια, τ⋯ τρ⋯τον δ⋯ εỉς τ⋯ ἱερουργικ⋯ν, ⋯ ⋯στιν ἤδη τ⋯ς ϕυσικ⋯ς θεωρ⋯ας· κα⋯ τ⋯ταρτον ⋯π⋯ π⋯σι τ⋯ θεολογικ⋯ν εἶδος, ⋯ ⋯ποπτε⋯α, ἣν ϕησιν ⋯ Πλ⋯των τ⋯ν μεγ⋯λων ὅντως εἶναι μυστηρ⋯ων,' Ἀριστοτ⋯λης δ⋯ τ⋯ εἶδος το⋯το μετ⋯ τ⋯ ϕυσικ⋯ καλεῖ. Clarke E. A., Clement's Use of Aristotle (New York, 1977), p. 68, points out that Clement seems unaware that the title ‘Metaphysics’ does not originate from Aristotle himself.

42 Mu. 6. 397b16–24.

43 Mu. 6. 400a3–9. Cf. 398a11–35.

44 Mu. 6. 399b10–19. Cf. b14: κα⋯ γ⋯ρ ⋯ ψυχ⋯, δι' ἦν ζ⋯μεν τε κα⋯ οἴκους κα⋯ π⋯λεις ἔχομεν, ⋯⋯ρατος οὖσα τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτ⋯ς ⋯ρ⋯ται … b19: Τα⋯τα χρ⋯ κα⋯ περ⋯ θεο⋯ διανοεῖσθαι … δι⋯τι πασῇ θνητῇ ϕ⋯σει γεν⋯μενος ⋯θεώρητος ⋯π' αὐτ⋯ν τ⋯ν ἔργων ωρεῖται.

45 Mu. 1. 391a11–16.

46 Cf. Mu. 4. 394b9–12: λ⋯γεται δ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯τ⋯ρως πνε⋯μα ἥ τε ⋯ν ϕυτοῖς κα⋯ ζῷοις [κα⋯] δι⋯ π⋯ντων δι⋯κουσα ἔμψυχ⋯ς τε κα⋯ γ⋯νιμος οὐσ⋯α, περ⋯ ἦς ν⋯ν λ⋯γειν οὐκ ⋯ναγκαῖον Cf. Hermes 119 (1991), 321–4.

47 Cic. N.D. 1.13.33 = Arist . De philos. fr. 26 Ross, 25. 1 Gigon: Aristotelesque in tertio de philosophia libro multa turbat a magistro suo Platone dissentiens. modo enim menti tribuit omnem divinitatem, modo mundum ipsum deum dicit esse, modo alium quendam praeficit mundo eique eas partes tribuit ut replicatione quadam mundi motum regat atque tueatur. turn caeli ardorem deum dicit esse quern alio loco ipse designarit deum.

48 Bos A. P., Cosmic and Meta-cosmic Theology, pp. 185200.

49 Ps.-Plut. Placita 1.7.881e: Ἀριστοτ⋯λης τ⋯ν μ⋯ν ⋯νωτ⋯τω θε⋯ν εἶδος χωριστ⋯ν, ⋯πιβεβηκ⋯τα τῇ αϕα⋯ρα το⋯ π⋯ντος, ἥτις ⋯στ⋯ν αἰθ⋯ριον σ⋯μα, τ⋯ π⋯μπτον ⋯π' αὐτο⋯ καλο⋯μενον. In the parallel text from Stobaeus <χωριστ⋯ν> is lacking, but it adds ⋯μο⋯ως Πλ⋯τωνι. In the preceding section Ps.-Plut. had noted for Plato: νο⋯ς οὖν ⋯ θε⋯ς, χωριστ⋯ν εἶδος. τουτ⋯στι τ⋯ ἄμιγες π⋯σης ὕλης κα⋯ μηδεν⋯ παθητῷ συμπεπλε⋯νον Cf. Diels H., Doxographi Graeci, pp. 304–5; Pépin J., Théologie cosmique, pp. 159–60, who believes this text echoes Aristotle's De philosophia.

50 Diog. Laert. 5.32: τ⋯ν δ⋯ θε⋯ν ⋯σώματον ⋯π⋯ϕαινε καθ⋯ κα⋯ ⋯ Πλ⋯των, διατε⋯νειν δ⋯ αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ν προνο⋯αν μ⋯χρι τ⋯ν οὐραν⋯ων κα⋯ εἶναι ⋯κ⋯νητον. See Moraux P., Elenchos 7 (1986), 281.

51 Athenag . Leg. 6.3: Ἀριστοτ⋯λης κα⋯ οἱ ⋯π' α⋯το⋯ ἔνα ἄγοντες ο⋯ονε⋯ ζῷον σ⋯νθετον, ⋯κ ψυχ⋯ς κα⋯ σώματος συνεστηκ⋯τα λ⋯γουσι τ⋯ν θε⋯ν, σ⋯μα μ⋯ν αὐτο⋯ τ⋯ αΈθ⋯ριον νομ⋯ζοντες το⋯ς τε πλανωμ⋯νους ⋯στ⋯ρας κα⋯ τ⋯ν σϕαῖραν τ⋯ν κινο⋯μενα κυκλοϕορητκ⋯ς, ψυχ⋯ν δ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ τῇ κιν⋯σει το⋯ αώματος λ⋯γον, αὐτ⋯ν οὐ κινο⋯μενον, αἴτιον δ⋯ τ⋯ς το⋯του κιν⋯σεως γιν⋯μενον. Bardy G. notes in Athénagore, Supplique au sujet des Chrétiens (Paris, 1943) p. 85 n. 2: ‘En realité ce n'est pas la doctrine d'Aristote qui est ici exposée mais celle du Du monde’, with reference to A. J. Festugière, L'Idéal religieux. But Schoedel W. R. notes in Athenagoras, Legatio and De Resurrectione, ed. and transl. (Oxford, 1972), p 15 n. 3: ‘Possibly derived from Aetius, Plac. 1.7.32; but it is more likely that Athenagoras reflects the early (Platonizing) Aristotle here (Lazzati G., L'Aristotele perduto e gli antichi scrittori cristiani (Milan, 1938), pp. 6972; cf. Aetius, Plac. 5.20.1)’. Cf. also Pépin J., Théologie cosmique, p. 159.

62 Diog. Laert. 5.32–3: κα⋯ τ⋯ν ψυχ⋯ν δ⋯ ⋯σώματον, ⋯ντελ⋯χειαν οὖσαν τ⋯ν πρώτην σώματος [γ⋯ρ] ϕυσικο⋯ κα⋯ ⋯ργανικο⋯ δυν⋯μει ζω⋯ν ἔχοντος. λ⋯γει δ', ⋯ντελ⋯χειαν, ἦς ⋯στιν εἶδ⋯ς τι ⋯σώματον. On the problems connected with this passage, see Moraux P., Elenchos 7 (1986), pp. 282ff. Various corruptions must have taken place in this doxographical passage of Diogenes Laertius. However, Moraux does date it to an earlier period than the commentaries on Aristotle's treatises. The author's original intention must have been to say something like: λ⋯γει δ' ⋯ντελ⋯γειαν εἷδ⋯ς τι ⋯σώματον … (art. cit., p. 285).

53 Cf. n. 44 above.

54 Cf. Arist . Anim. 3.5, Metaph. 2.1, 993b9–11.

55 Cf. Arist . Anim. 1.3, 407b12–26. See also Martyr Justin, Dial. 4.27. Cf. van Winden J. C. M., An Early Christian Philosopher: Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho Chapters One to Nine (Leiden, 1971).

56 Alex , of Aphrod . Aporiae 1.25, p. 40.17 (ed. Bruns I.).

57 Clem. Protr. 5.66.4: τ⋯ν κ⋯σμον θε⋯ν ⋯γο⋯μενος.

58 Cf. Pépin J., ‘Cosmic Piety’, in Armstrong A. H. (ed.), Classical Mediterranean Spirituality; Egyptian, Greek, Roman (New York, 1986), pp. 408–35, p. 413: ‘In his best-known works, which arise from his teaching as head of a school, Aristotle leaves no room even for the possibility of a religion of the world. But probably it was not always so.’

59 Cic., N.D. 1.13.33 = Arist . Philos. fr. 26 Ross; 25.1 Gigon. Cf. n. 47 above.

60 Jaeger W., Aristotle (Oxford, 1948), p. 139. Cf. Festugière A. J., La Révélation d'Hermés Trismégiste, ii. 244 n. 4.

61 Pépin J., Theologie cosmique, p. 146 with n. 2. Cf. Berti E., La filosofia delprimo Aristotele (Padua, 1962), p. 378 with n. 230.

62 Philo , Aet. 3.10 = Arist . Philos. fr. 18Ross and Philo , Aet. 5.20 = Arist . Philos. fr. 19a Ross. Cf. Pépin J., ‘Cosmic Piety’, pp. 413–14.

63 Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.43.1 = Arist . Philos. fr. 22 Ross.

64 I would like to acknowledge my gratitude for the stimulating criticism of a draft version of this article which I received from my colleagues D. M. Schenkeveld and D. T. Runia of the Free University, Amsterdam and J. C. M. van Winden of the State University of Leiden, and from an anonymous referee of the CQ. The final version was realized during a study leave spent at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in Wassenaar in 1991–2.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Classical Quarterly
  • ISSN: 0009-8388
  • EISSN: 1471-6844
  • URL: /core/journals/classical-quarterly
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 55 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.