{"title":"Calcidius on Demons: Fragments of the Commentarius on Plato’s Timaeus (A Translation and Notes)","authors":"","doi":"10.25205/1995-4328-2023-17-2-1109-1121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The publication presents a commented Russian translation of chapters 120 and 127–136 from Calcidius’ Commentarius on Plato’s Timaeus dealing with demonology, a most important part of philosophical knowledge in the eyes of Neoplatonic thinkers. We know virtually nothing about Calcidius, neither the dates of his lifespan, nor the place where he lived and worked. Even his name has become debatable recently: Chalcidius or Calcidius. Meanwhile, his principal (and only) work, a Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus accompanied by a detailed commentary, has become the most important link in the transmission of Plato’s legacy from Antiquity to the medieval Latin West. Up to the twelfth-century turning point and the rise of the School of Chartres, the reception of Plato in the West was channeled almost exclusively through Calcidius’s work. His translation of the Timaeus, which occupies pages 17a–92c in the Corpus Platonicum, carries on only up to page 57c; another translation of the Timaeus, which has been accessible in the Latin West, belonged to Cicero, and was even more abridged (pages 27d–47b with omissions); nevertheless, it was Cicero’s translation that St. Augustine (354–430) used, unaware, it would seem, of Calcidius’ work. The most probable dating of our author seems to be the 4th – the beginning of the 5th century AD. Calcidius reveals himself as an author in his own right, who had not only accomplished the serious job of translating philosophical terminology from Greek into Latin, but also contributed to the development of the genre of commentary, and so deserves to be studied not only as a transmitter of knowledge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The Russian translation is based on the standard Jan Hendrik Waszink’s edition (1975), taking into account more recent editions by C. Moreschini (2003), B. Bakhouche (2011), and J. Magee (2016), which are accompanied by translations into modern European languages; the chronological density of these publications testifies to the undoubtable surge of interest in Calcidius’ work in the last few decades.","PeriodicalId":228501,"journal":{"name":"ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2023-17-2-1109-1121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The publication presents a commented Russian translation of chapters 120 and 127–136 from Calcidius’ Commentarius on Plato’s Timaeus dealing with demonology, a most important part of philosophical knowledge in the eyes of Neoplatonic thinkers. We know virtually nothing about Calcidius, neither the dates of his lifespan, nor the place where he lived and worked. Even his name has become debatable recently: Chalcidius or Calcidius. Meanwhile, his principal (and only) work, a Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus accompanied by a detailed commentary, has become the most important link in the transmission of Plato’s legacy from Antiquity to the medieval Latin West. Up to the twelfth-century turning point and the rise of the School of Chartres, the reception of Plato in the West was channeled almost exclusively through Calcidius’s work. His translation of the Timaeus, which occupies pages 17a–92c in the Corpus Platonicum, carries on only up to page 57c; another translation of the Timaeus, which has been accessible in the Latin West, belonged to Cicero, and was even more abridged (pages 27d–47b with omissions); nevertheless, it was Cicero’s translation that St. Augustine (354–430) used, unaware, it would seem, of Calcidius’ work. The most probable dating of our author seems to be the 4th – the beginning of the 5th century AD. Calcidius reveals himself as an author in his own right, who had not only accomplished the serious job of translating philosophical terminology from Greek into Latin, but also contributed to the development of the genre of commentary, and so deserves to be studied not only as a transmitter of knowledge from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. The Russian translation is based on the standard Jan Hendrik Waszink’s edition (1975), taking into account more recent editions by C. Moreschini (2003), B. Bakhouche (2011), and J. Magee (2016), which are accompanied by translations into modern European languages; the chronological density of these publications testifies to the undoubtable surge of interest in Calcidius’ work in the last few decades.
该出版物介绍了卡尔迪乌斯的《柏拉图的蒂梅乌斯评论》第120章和127-136章的俄文评论翻译,该评论涉及恶魔学,这是新柏拉图主义思想家眼中哲学知识的最重要部分。我们对卡尔迪乌斯几乎一无所知,既不知道他的生命日期,也不知道他生活和工作的地方。就连他的名字最近也引起了争议:是卡尔西迪乌斯还是卡尔迪乌斯。与此同时,他的主要(也是唯一的)著作,柏拉图的《蒂迈奥》的拉丁文翻译,并附有详细的注释,已经成为柏拉图的遗产从古代传播到中世纪拉丁西方的最重要的一环。直到12世纪的转折点和沙特尔学派的兴起,西方对柏拉图的接受几乎完全是通过卡尔迪乌斯的作品来引导的。他对蒂迈奥的翻译,在柏拉图文集的17a-92c页,只延续到57c页;《蒂迈奥》的另一个译本,在拉丁西方可以找到,属于西塞罗,并且更加删节(第27d-47b页有遗漏);然而,圣奥古斯丁(354-430)使用的是西塞罗的译本,似乎并不知道卡尔迪乌斯的作品。我们的作者最有可能的年代似乎是公元4 - 5世纪初。他不仅完成了将哲学术语从希腊语翻译成拉丁语的严肃工作,而且还为评论流派的发展做出了贡献,因此,他不仅是古代到中世纪知识的传播者,而且值得研究。俄文翻译基于Jan Hendrik Waszink的标准版本(1975),考虑到C. Moreschini (2003), B. Bakhouche(2011)和J. Magee(2016)的最新版本,并附有现代欧洲语言的翻译;这些出版物按时间顺序排列的密度证明了在过去的几十年里,人们对卡尔迪乌斯的工作无疑产生了极大的兴趣。