Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry.

Clarendon Press, 2006. 430p. Hardbound with dust wrps. Spine gilt titled. Signature and some personal annotations from J. Mansfeld on free endpaper. Notae doctae J. Mansfeld. A lot of markings, underlinings and annotations from JM. Series: Oxford Philosophical Monographs. ?In this thorough and detailed inquiry K.(aramanolis) studies the various ways in which a number of self-styled Platonists looked at Aristotle as a more or less (especially less) dissenting disciple of Plato, and argued either in favour of agreement on all or the most important major points, or rejected part or much of Aristotle?s philosophy as useless. One learns a lot about ancient Platonism from this point of view. A general introduction is followed by seven case studies, viz. by chapters dealing with Antiochus, Plutarch of Chaeronea, Numenius, Atticus the severe critic of Aristotle, Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, and Porphyry. One notes with some surprise that a chapter on Alcinous is lacking. (?) He studies his seven representatives of what became an interpretative tradition (?), and concludes that it is Porphyry, the first Platonist (he argues) to write commentaries on Aristotelian treatises, who is responsible for the integration of substantial sections of Aristotle?s oeuvre in this curriculum. (?) In each substantial case study K. attempts to establish what exactly according to, say, Antiochius, or Plotinus, the purported agreement between Plato and Aristotle consisted in. Unavoidably most of the time the outcome is highly speculative, and K. moreover is not always consistent either. (?) A perhaps more important observation is that K. is not always clear about the rules of interpretation in antiquity, or about the customs and motivations of interpreters. (?) An interesting section of the best chapter of the book, that on Porphyry, is about Porphyry?s two lost treatises dealing with Plato and Aristotle (?).? (JAAP MANSFELD in Mnemosyne, 2010, pp.519-522).