Пожалуйста, используйте этот идентификатор, чтобы цитировать или ссылаться на этот ресурс: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/43839
Полная запись метаданных
Поле DCЗначениеЯзык
dc.contributor.authorSoloviev, Roman S.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-22T19:24:51Z-
dc.date.available2023-08-22T19:24:51Z-
dc.date.issued2023-03-
dc.identifier.citationSoloviev R. S. Philosophical renovation in the 3rd century: The polemical component of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini in relation to Gregory of Neocaesaria’s Oratio Panegyrica. Philologia Classica 2023, 18 (1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2023.102en_GB
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.21638/spbu20.2023.102-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11701/43839-
dc.description.abstractThis paper offers an analysis of similar and parallel developing projects of creating a true philosophy by the disciples and followers of Origen and Plotinus. Two texts permeated by the eulogy of the scholarch are analysed: Gregory the Wonderworker’s The Address of Thanksgiving to Origen and the Life of Plotinus by Porphyry. Gregory was a student of Origen, while Porphyry attended his school long enough to become familiar with the doctrine, teaching methods and personality of the scholarch. The author establishes the structural, thematic and lexical similarity of both texts. The text by Gregory the Wonderworker, chronologically earlier, was a pushing away point for Porphyry in creating an image of the ideal scholarch in the person of Plotinus. This is confirmed by the structural and lexical contrast in the portrayal of Plotinus in Vita Plotini and Origen in the passage preserved by Proclus (Procl. In Tim. I.63. 29–33). In particular, the negative image of Origen in Vita Plotini 13. 10–17 is echoed by the figure of Thaumasius, dissatisfied with the protracted dispute between Plotinus and Porphyry, which rarely draws the scholars’ attention. Nowhere else mentioned, Thaumasius appears as a marginal figure: either he himself was interested in general statements and wanted to hear Plotinus speaking in the manner of a set treatise (trans. Armstrong), or he wanted Plotinus to “faire une conférence suivie et propre à être écrite” (trans. Bréhier). The author hypothesises that it is not a proper name but a nickname. The author suggests that Thaumasius is not an accidental participant in a specific episode of the Neoplatonists’ school life but the philosophical rival of the Neoplatonists, theologian Origen, ironically presented in an unattractive manner. Thus, the deliberately constructed episode with Plotinus and Thaumasius is a polemical jab at Origen’s followers, who put forward a programme of philosophical renovation alternative to the Platonic, and the very depiction of Plotinus as a ‘divine man’ (θεῖος ἀνήρ) responds to the image of Origen painted by his followers. The supposed allusions in Vita Plotini 13. 5–17 testify to the openness of the Roman Neoplatonic school to the already-formed Christian version of philosophy. For this reason, Porphyry chose to portray a situation in which Plotinus showed attention and patience in interpreting difficult philosophical questions for three days. In contrast, Origen, in a similar situation, showed impatience and irritability.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherSt Petersburg State Universityen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPhilologia Classica;Volume 18; Issue 1-
dc.subjectNeoplatonismen_GB
dc.subjectPorphyryen_GB
dc.subjectLife of Plotinusen_GB
dc.subjectThaumasiusen_GB
dc.subjectGregory of Neocaesareaen_GB
dc.subjectOratio Panegyricaen_GB
dc.subjectOrigenen_GB
dc.titlePhilosophical renovation in the 3rd century: The polemical component of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini in relation to Gregory of Neocaesaria’s Oratio Panegyricaen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
Располагается в коллекциях:Issue 1

Файлы этого ресурса:
Файл Описание РазмерФормат 
02.pdf741,44 kBAdobe PDFПросмотреть/Открыть


Все ресурсы в архиве электронных ресурсов защищены авторским правом, все права сохранены.