Person und Subsistenz. Die Philosophische Anthropologie des Leontios von Byzanz; ein Beitrag zur spätantiken Geistesgeschichte (review)

464 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY character not expressing Aristotle's own doctrines. Dtiring's reasoning amounts to what today is called overkill.2 Furthermore: If somebody in the dialogue said that the soul on its incarnation forgets what it has seen before that event, does this contradict Plato? Dtiring must be familiar with the passage in Phaedrus 250A where it is said explicitly that the majority of men at birth forget the ideas their souls once contemplated. Each human soul, says Plato, by nature has seen z0c ovx~ before its incarnation, but not all can easily remember them, if (or because) for some reason, ),'~O~qv~v ~6"~r s~8ov[epc~v~Zs~v. o~tTQct 8"~ ),~ov'rac~, cc~ x8 ":~r ~.v~t~ [recycle ~:~[~r But even in them the memory is quite feeble; appearing beauty alone is sufficiently effective to remind them of the true beauty beyond. One could even say that Aristotle's explanation (the soul forgets what it has seen before its incarnation just as a man falling ill forgets what he has known when well) is superior to that given by Plato. Ad (3) This is a strange argument. Did anybody ever assert that all the doctrines professed in all dialogues contradicted all doctrines of the acroamatic writings, so that Aristotle should have repudiated them wholesale? Why shouldn't Aristotle have quoted only those with which he still agreed? Before concluding, I should say a few words on another of Dfiring's assertions. "As far as the immortality of the soul is concerned, Plato and Aristotle agree that only the no~s is immortal." 3 I am afraid this commits Dtiring to the opinion that the Phaedo is not by Plato (or doesn't express his true point of view); that the doctrine of transmigration (including transmigration into beasts) is either non-Platonic or presupposes that the souls of animals are no~s; that what is punished according to the eschatological myths of Gorgias and the State is man's no~s. PHILIP MERL~ Scripps College NOTE: Professor Merlan's death in December, 1968 prevented him from adding his concluding words here. There are indications that he may have extended this review, which was found among his papers.--Ed. Person und Subsistenz. Die Philosophische Anthropologie des Leontius von Byzanz; ein Beitrag zur spiitantiken Geistesgeschichte. By Stephan Otto. (Miinchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1968. Pp. 209) The author wants to examine "not only the terminology of his [Leontius of Byzantium's] speculative anthropology but also the underlying principles" (p. 11). In this way he proposes to solve three tasks: First the so-called Leontius question (the relationship between the writings transmitted under the names Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem), and second the relation of the two Leontii to the intellectual history of late antiquity. Third, by investigating the philosophical principles of the Leontic anthropology he hopes to show the relevance for the history of philosophy of the Council of Chalcedon and the disputes that followed it. The book is organized in three main parts. Part I (pp. 21-86) deals with Leontius For additional discussion of the phrase see P. Medan, From Platonism to Neoplatonism (2nd ed.; The Hague, 1960), pp. 6-8. , p. 557 (of. p. 361, n. 97). No references are given. His reference to p. 254 of O. Regenbogen , Kleine $chri]ten (Mfinchen, 1961) is entirely misleading, as Regenbogen does not deny that in the Phaedo Plato speaks primarily (iiberwiegend) of the individual soul. BOOK REVIEWS 465 of Byzantium; his two writings (Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos; Epilysis) are interpreted and their underlying principles studied in two chapters. Part II (pp. 87-151) treats Le.ontius of Jerusalem similarly (Contra Nestorianos; Contra Monophysitas). In Part HI (pp. 152-189) the neo-Platonic presuppositions are outlined; moreover, Boethius, Joannes Maxentius, and Joannes Grammatikos of Caesarea are included, because they represent a position similar to that of the two Leontii. The study closes (pp. 190-203) with a good translation of Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos, Book I. A selected bibliography and an index of names are given at the end (pp. 204-209). Otto claims that "only the Chalcedonian formula of faith made an accurate...