Citations:ἐπιστροφή

Ancient Greek citations of ἐπιστροφή (epistrophḗ) and ἐπιστροφῆς (epistrophês)

• C.E. 515–529, Damascius Diadochus, edited by Charles-Émile Ruelle, Ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις περὶ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχῶν εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνος Παρμενίδην [Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles in Plato’s Parmenides], volume I of II, Paris: C. Klincksieck, bibliopola, published 1889, ¶ 61, page 133, lines 22–24:

  Τὸ γὰρ ἐν τῷ προϊέναι οὔπω ἀπέστη· οὐ τοίνυν οὐ δέεται ἐπιστροφῆς· ἡ γὰρ ἐπιστροφὴ τῆς ἐκστάσεώς ἐστιν ἐπανόρθωσις.

  Tò gàr en tôi proïénai oúpō apéstē; ou toínun ou déetai epistrophês; hē gàr epistrophḕ tês ekstáseṓs estin epanórthōsis.

  For what is in the course of procession is not yet separated. And hence it does not require reversion. Reversion is a correction of separation.

  English translation by Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Damascius' Problems & Solutions Concerning First Principles. Oxford University Press, 2010.@academia.edu, p.216.

• C.E. 515–529, Damascius Diadochus, edited by Charles-Émile Ruelle, Ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις περὶ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχῶν εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνος Παρμενίδην [Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles in Plato’s Parmenides], volume I of II, Paris: C. Klincksieck, bibliopola, published 1889, ¶ 72, page 158, lines 15–22:

  Πάλιν δὲ ἀπ᾽ ἄλλης ἀρχῆς ἀρξάμενοι λέγομεν περὶ γνωστοῦ τε καὶ γνώσεως, καὶ ἔτι πρότερον περὶ μονῆς καὶ προόδου καὶ ἐπιστροφῆς· ἀπὸ γὰρ τούτων τῶν λόγων φανεῖται καὶ τίς ἡ χρεία τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τί τὸ γνωστόν· ἔτι δὲ ἀπὸ τούτων ἀπορήσομεν καὶ εἴ τίς ἐστι μονὴ καὶ πρόοδος καὶ ἐπιστροφὴ ἐν τῷ ἡνωμένῳ· καὶ πρό γε πάντων ζητητέον πῶς τὸ πρῶτον ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρου ἕτερον διεκρίθη· τὸ γὰρ δὴ πρῶτον διακρινόμενον ἢ διακεκριμένον (ἔστω γὰρ ἐπὶ τούτου ὁ λόγος), τὸ δ᾽ οὖν διακεκριμένον, ἀλλὰ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνο ἀφ᾽ οὗ διακέκριται, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ διακεκριμένον.

  Beginning from another point, let us once more speak about the object of knowledge, and (still prior to these) about remaining and procession and reversion. After these arguments, the questions arise: what is the function of knowledge and what is the nature of the object of knowledge? And still further after these questions, we can ask if there are remaining, procession and reversion in the Unified. And yet before all these issues, we must inquire how first it happened that one thing became distinct from another thing. For the first distinct or the first distinguishing, this will be the topic of our argument. Now as for this distinct thing, it is other than that from which it is distinct, because that also is distinct.

  English translation by Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Damascius' Problems & Solutions Concerning First Principles. Oxford University Press, 2010.@academia.edu, p.244.

• C.E. 515–529, Damascius Diadochus, edited by Charles-Émile Ruelle, Ἀπορίαι καὶ λύσεις περὶ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχῶν εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνος Παρμενίδην [Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles in Plato’s Parmenides], volume I of II, Paris: C. Klincksieck, bibliopola, published 1889, ¶ 75, page 166, lines 11–13:

  Τί δέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπιστροφή; τί δὲ ἄλλο φαίη τις ἂν ἢ τοῦ προελθόντος ἐπάνοδος εἰς τὸ γεννῆσαν; ἀντίθετος γὰρ τῇ προόδῳ καὶ οἷον ἐκείνης ἐπανόρθωσίς τίς ἐστι καὶ ἀνάλυσις.

  Tí dé estin hē epistrophḗ; tí dè állo phaíē tis àn ḕ toû proelthóntos epánodos eis tò gennêsan? antíthetos gàr têi proódōi kaì hoîon ekeínēs epanórthōsís tís esti kaì análusis.

  […], but what is the nature of reversion? What else could one say, than the return of what has proceeded into its source? It is the opposite of procession and as it were a correction of that, as well as an undoing of procession.

  English translation by Sara Ahbel-Rappe, Damascius' Problems & Solutions Concerning First Principles. Oxford University Press, 2010.@academia.edu, p.253.