before and after the commentators: an ...ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/.../osap/38-chiaradonnarashed.pdfmost...

BEFORE AND AFTER THECOMMENTATORS AN

EXERCISE IN PERIODIZATION

A Discussion of Richard Sorabji ThePhilosophy of the Commentators ndash

RICCARDO CHIARADONNA AND MARWAN RASHED

Sorabjirsquos Sourcebook and the lsquoSourcesrsquo

T edition of the Commentaria in AristotelemGraeca sponsoredby the Berlin Academy of Sciences is one of the greatest monu-menta of nineteenth-century German philology it was achievedby an extraordinary generation of scholars whose mastery of Al-tertumswissenschaften is hardly conceivable (let alone attainable) inthe contemporary world Yet one should not forget that the wholeproject was based on the idea with which contemporary scholarswould hardly agree that the ancient commentaries are principallya tool for the recensio and interpretation of Aristotlersquos treatises thecomplete edition of the ancient commentaries was then conceivedof as the natural complement to that of Aristotle The idea be-

copy Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed Generally this article expresses our common views Section is by RiccardoChiaradonna Section is by Marwan Rashed while Section is the work ofboth authors We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for helpfulsuggestions and to express our deepest gratitude to Brad Inwood for his detailedreading and constructive criticisms

R Sorabji (ed) The Philosophy of the Commentators ndash A Sourcebook vols (London Duckworth ) i Psychology (with Ethics and Religion) [Psy-chology] pp xv+ ii Physics [Physics] pp xix+ iii Logic and Metaphysics[Logic and Metaphysics] pp xvii+

See the remarks in the general introduction at the beginning of each volume(henceforth lsquoIntroductionrsquo) ndash at

On the project of the CAG see the masterly reviews by H Usener in Goumlttingi-sche Gelehrte Anzeigen () ndash and K Praechter in Byzantinische Zeit-schrift () ndash (repr in Kleine Schriften ed H Doumlrrie [Kleine Schriften]

Created on 18 February 2010 at 1642 hours page 251

Riccardo Chiaradonna and Marwan Rashed

hind Richard Sorabjirsquos (henceforth S) Sourcebook ie that there isa lsquophilosophy of the commentatorsrsquo which transforms Aristotle anddeserves to be studied in itself (not as ancillary to something else)is rather recent Philosophy from to was obviously notignored before the current flourishing of research on the commenta-torsNeoplatonism and late antique thought have traditionally beenthe focus of considerable interest among classical scholars Yet theNeoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle were often left aside andtheir overall impact on twentieth-century scholarship on late an-tique philosophy was until recent times modest Notoriously thesituation has changed radically during the last three decades mostlythanks to Srsquos projects The huge corpus of the Commentaria inAristotelem Graeca is now intensively studied and the philosophyof the commentators is widely recognized as a crucial aspect of an-cient thought The Sourcebook can be seen as the crowning of thisrenaissance of interest

As the title makes clear Srsquos Sourcebook focuses on the lsquophi-losophy of the commentatorsrsquo from to As such thiswork may be expected to be a guide to the main philosophical is-sues raised and concepts used in the Commentaria in AristotelemGraeca Things however are somewhat different many texts in-cluded in the Sourcebook do not come from the Commentaria andthe three volumes offer something different from a mere panoramaof the extant ancient commentaries on Aristotle The inclusion ofa number of Aristotelian passages is a straightforward choice since

(Hildesheim and New York ) ndash English translation by V Caston in RSorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformed The Ancient Commentators and their Influence[Aristotle Transformed] (London ) ndash)

It may be interesting to focus on the causes of this fact but the issue would de-mand a long discussion which it is not possible to undertake here Some main rea-sons however may provisionally be singled out the first has just been mentionednamely that the study of the ancient commentaries was conceived of as pertainingto the interpretation of Aristotle rather than to the study of late antique thoughtFurthermore a certain idea of lsquoPlatonismrsquo (and lsquoNeoplatonismrsquo) as a homogeneousphenomenon (in antiquity and beyond) may have played a significant role in thelack of interest in the commentaries on Aristotle Finally late antique philosophyhas traditionally been seen as mostly (if not exclusively) theological accordingly itwas easy to regard the commentaries on Aristotle as out of the main scope of lsquoNeo-platonismrsquo (the metaphysical and theological interpretation of Plato)

Details in J Sellars lsquoThe Aristotelian Commentators A BibliographicalGuidersquo in P Adamson H Baltussen and M Stone (eds) Philosophy Science andExegesis in Greek Arabic and Latin Commentaries vol i [Philosophy Science andExegesis i] (London ) ndash


Before and after the Commentators

the lsquophilosophy of the commentatorsrsquo originates from the exegesisof Aristotle The Sourcebook however includes more than that thediscussion often focuses on authors such as Galen or Plotinus thecommentaries on Plato by Proclus and Damascius occupy an im-portant position in the collection the Church Fathers are also re-presented etc This is an apparently strange fact As S makes cleara sourcebook on the commentators faces the opposite problem fromthat tackled in Long and Sedleyrsquos Hellenistic Philosophers lsquoInsteadof there being too little material surviving there is too muchrsquo (lsquoIn-troductionrsquo ) Selection and lack of completeness are then un-avoidable the Sourcebook lsquois meant to offer not the last word buta first assembling of texts to make them accessible so that otherscan make new discoveries offer new interpretations and fill gapsrsquo(lsquoIntroductionrsquo )

Remarks such as these make the situation mentioned above evenmore puzzling if the Commentaria offer such a wealth of mater-ial that a sourcebook cannot aim to be complete why should oneadd further material to the collection A remark on Plotinus mayhelp us to understand this choice and will shed some light on therationale that underlies this collection of sources S claims thatlsquooften it turns out Plotinus is the only extant source which ex-plains the background ideas that the Neoplatonist commentatorswere discussingrsquo (lsquoIntroductionrsquo ) As S makes clear (ibid) hisSourcebook is not and is not designed to be a sourcebook on Neo-platonism Yet the main philosophical ideas of most of the com-mentators cannot be separated from late antique Platonism for thevery simple reason that all the commentators later than Alexan-der were Platonist philosophers Furthermore Neoplatonism doesnot emerge from a vacuum and its genesis can be understood onlyagainst the wider background of philosophy around Both acertain lack of completeness and reference to a wider backgroundseem then to be unavoidable This may actually raise some prob-lems and in order correctly to assess the merits and limits of Srsquosapproach it is necessary to outline what he seeks to do and where

The three volumes of the Sourcebook include after an introduc-tion an average of twenty chapters each representing twenty phi-losophical topics Each topic is further broken down into an average

A A Long and D N Sedley The Hellenistic Philosophers vols (Cambridge)



of half a dozen subtopics so that between them the three volumescover some subtopics in philosophy Volume i deals with psy-chology together with ethics and religion volume ii with physicsand volume iii with logic and metaphysics When S says that thisis not a sourcebook on Neoplatonism he explains that it includessome non-Platonist commentators (Aspasius and Alexander) anddoes not seek to cover all the issues that are essential to Neoplato-nism For example Proclusrsquo complex doctrine of henads is largelyomitted from the Sourcebook unsurprisingly so since most of it isirrelevant to the philosophical questions raised in the commentar-ies on Aristotle Of course for Alexander of Aphrodisias the rein-terpretation of Aristotle in order to counter developments in rivalschools over the intervening years will have been a (or ratherthe) primary aim But this was not such an important aim for theNeoplatonists To them the Aristotelian texts were a preliminarysubject for their students before the reading of Plato (althoughNeo-platonist interpretations of Plato were indeed often deeply influ-enced by the reading ofAristotle) Thismay be regarded as a furtherpart of Srsquos reason for disclaiming any intention of explaining Neo-platonism as a whole

If this explains some of Srsquos omissions what about his insertionsin theSourcebook from outside the corpus of commentaries on Aris-totle Quite often the philosophical theories and concepts used inthat corpus are better explained on the basis of material outside thatcorpus In addition S aims to make the philosophical ideas in thecommentaries better known to a wide range of disciplines not onlyto scholars of ancient philosophy but also to historians of scienceto scholars of the Middle Ages and Renaissance to philosophersto theologians to scholars of commentary in other disciplines andlanguages etc (lsquoIntroductionrsquo ) The early Church Fathers forexample often have related theories sometimes influenced by thephilosophy of the commentators The familiarity of such theoriesto scholars of Patristics is arguably an important reason for direct-ing their attention to the pagan texts Scholars with a different in-terest for example in late antique philosophy after Alexander takenas a whole would certainly make a different selection of topics Yetit was the interpretation of Aristotle first by Alexander and thenthrough the lens of the Neoplatonists that most influenced the Is-lamic and Christian Middle Ages This historical fact is probablypart of what influenced Srsquos choice of focus



If this explains some of the questions asked above there is atleast one further issue that needs to be raised Srsquos study of thecommentators focuses on the philosophical ideas in their worksAccordingly when S speaks of lsquobackgroundrsquo he is speaking ofthe background to philosophical ideas Others have looked toother kinds of background which at least in these volumes S doesnot discuss in depth As a matter of fact the idea of backgroundhas often been used in order to refer to the common lsquoschool back-groundrsquo of late antique authors (handbooks terminology curriculaexegetical methods etc) This is a perfectly plausible choice andlsquobackground studiesrsquo have significantly improved our knowledgeof late antique philosophical traditions In the Sourcebook Srsquosdiscussion of the methodology of the commentators is strikinglybrief for a more extensive treatment he refers to the collection ofpapers Aristotle Transformed that he edited in This choiceis perhaps open to criticism yet the consequences of Srsquos focus onthe philosophical (rather than methodological) background of thecommentators may still be seen as interesting and fruitful As notedabove studies on the school background of Neoplatonist philo-sophers have flourished in recent decades to the extent that thevery notion of lsquoexegesisrsquo (or lsquoexegetical philosophyrsquo) has sometimescome to be regarded as the key for understanding post-Hellenisticand late antique philosophy For all of its merits such an overallapproach also has some limits and may give rise to a rather non-philosophical picture of post-Hellenistic and late antique thoughtas a matter of fact it is difficult not to come to the conclusion thatlate antique philosophy has sometimes been treated as a traditiondominated by librarians or by exegetical schools where study ofthe teaching practice connected to the reading of and commentaryon the authoritative texts replaces a genuine interest in philoso-phical arguments Conclusions such as these do not convey the

Suffice it to refer to J Mansfeld Heresiography in Context Hippolytusrsquo Elen-chos as a Source for Greek Philosophy (Leiden ) and Prolegomena Questions tobe Settled before the Study of an Author or a Text (Leiden )

See Logic and Metaphysics See also I Hadot et al (trans and comm) Sim-plicius Commentaire sur les Cateacutegories vol i (Leiden ) P Hoffmann lsquoLa fonc-tion des prologues exeacutegeacutetiques dans la penseacutee peacutedagogique neacuteoplatoniciennersquo in BRoussel and J-D Dubois (eds) Entrer en matiegravere (Paris ) ndash On theongoing debate see the papers collected in C DrsquoAncona (ed) The Libraries of theNeoplatonists (Leiden )

Some contributions of Pierre Hadot tend to convey this idea see his papers col-lected in Eacutetudes de philosophie ancienne (Paris ) eg his influential lsquoTheacuteologie



extreme wealth and complexity of late antique thought Indeed thecommentators are exegetes but their way of interpreting the textslargely depends on their philosophical ideas it would be deeplyinadequate to explain the genesis and character of late antiquephilosophical ideas as if they were merely determined by the inter-pretation of the authoritative texts Rather it should be noted thatlate antique philosophers came to develop different (and sometimesalternative) interpretations of the authoritative texts in virtue oftheir different philosophical ideas and assumptions Srsquos deliberatebrevity in this book about the methodological and exegetical back-ground of the commentators thus has the welcome consequence ofgiving full weight to their philosophical arguments and positions

None the less there could have been other ways of bringing outthe commentatorsrsquo philosophical interest in Aristotle S treats it inmore or less the same way as Long and Sedley treat their subjects inHellenistic Philosophers But it would have been possible instead topresent a selection of places where the commentators work hard toelucidate the obscurities of Aristotlersquos text to discuss at length thedifferent options suggested by their predecessors to weigh the al-ternative merits of the transmitted readings etc It would of coursehave been less interesting for the modern reader whom S is seek-ing to engage but the project would have been neither absurd norless well founded We could imagine for example a book entitledAThousand and One Aristotelian Obscurities in the Light of the Com-mentators which would introduce the reader to all these unknownbattles fought by our brave commentators against the Masterrsquos re-fractory text We could even ask ourselves whether the commenta-torsrsquo digressions are really more lsquophilosophicalrsquo than their exegesisof the letter of Aristotlersquos and Platorsquos text No doubt S would notwant to attempt this in the very same book as his overview of phi-losophical ideas But he would surely agree that this would help tocomplete the picture of philosophical commentary on Aristotle

Plotinus the commentators and thedevelopment of late antique thought

Srsquos illuminating arrangement of and commentary on texts makesit possible fully to appreciate the crucial transformations that oc-

exeacutegegravese reacuteveacutelation eacutecriture dans la philosophie grecquersquo ndash (originally pub-lished in M Tardieu (ed) Les Regravegles de lrsquointerpreacutetation (Paris ) ndash)



curred in philosophy during the third century The key figuresin this turn are Alexander of Aphrodisias and Plotinus who radi-cally changed the philosophical panorama and laid the basis for thedevelopments that unfolded during later centuries In fact focus-ing on the reception of Aristotle by Alexander and Plotinus allowsa detailed understanding of the transition from lsquopost-Hellenisticrsquoto lsquolate antiquersquo philosophy The discussion of Plotinusrsquo views onknowledge and that of Alexanderrsquos theory of essential form willprovide sufficient illustration of these facts

(a) Theory of knowledge

Epistemology and theory of knowledge cover several chapters of theSourcebook in both the first and third volumes Chapter of Psy-chology (ndash) bears the title lsquoThoughtrsquo the list of subsectionsis substantial enough to include all the main issues of late antiquetheory of knowledge

First ((a)) S presents a selection of texts concerning the dif-ference between lsquointellectrsquo and lsquoreasonrsquo The list is short and hasa somewhat programmatic intent it is designed to introduce themain distinction (probably the one we find most controversial) thatoccurs in Neoplatonic epistemology that between discursive andintuitive thought The list of texts deserves some comment It con-tains a locus classicus from Rep ndash (line analogy withthe distinction between dianoia and noēsis) followed by two Aris-totelian passages from the Nicomachean Ethics ( andash andandashb) The selection from Aristotle is rather surprising In-deed the notion of lsquounderstandingrsquo has a significant position inAristotlersquos ethics but one may ask whether these are really themost relevant parallels for outlining the background ideas of thecommentators The lines on nous from Post An (bndash)which S postpones until later in the Psychology volume (ndash)would have been relevant here Interestingly lsquoPhiloponusrsquo (In AnPost ndash ndash Wallies) equates the nous praktikos withlogismos (see Post An b) ie to discursive reasoning thatcan be true or false thus opposing it to the theoretical nous of Post

See R Sorabji lsquoAristotle on the Role of Intellect in Virtuersquo Proceedings of theAristotelian Society (ndash) ndash

On the authorship of the commentary on Post An traditionally attributed toPhiloponus see now O Goldin (trans and comm) Philoponus () On AristotlePosterior Analytics (London )



An whose activity refers to the unchangingly true beings (InAn Post ndash Wallies)

S singles out two texts in order to present the general distinctionbetween reason (a lsquostep by step processrsquo) and intellect in Neoplato-nism The first comes fromBoethiusrsquoConsolatio ( prose section) and opposes the extended and moving character of ratiocinatioto the stability of intellectus The second text comes from Plotinusrsquotreatise On Eternity and Time ( [] ndash) and associatesdianoia with the intrinsically transitional kind of activity of the soul(ie time which is the lsquolife of the soulrsquo) As a matter of fact in theselines Plotinus does not focus on the distinction between nous anddianoia (or logismos) instead he presents discursive reasoning asthe kind of thinking proper to soul and stresses its connection withtime However the selection of Plotinus at the very beginning ofthis long chapter cannot but be approved and again it can be seenas somewhat programmatic since Plotinus turns out to be crucialfor understanding the discussions of the commentators on this to-pic and their philosophical significance

After lsquoreasonrsquo and lsquointellectrsquo S focuses ((c)) on lsquoopinativereasonrsquo (as opposed to lsquoscientific reasonrsquo) The texts discussed treatopinion as a kind of reasoning acquired lsquoempirically in Aristotlersquosmannerrsquo () from perceptibles reasoning that is different fromperception but lower than dianoia The list includes a difficultpassage from Syrianusrsquo In Metaph ( ndash Kroll) and a set ofpassages from Proclusrsquo In Timaeum The argument of ProclusrsquoIn Tim i ndash Diehl ((c)) is extremely interestingProclus traces back to Platorsquos Theaetetus ( ) the idea accordingto which perception (differently from dianoia) is ignorant of ousiaThen he singles out opinion (doxa) as distinct from perception inthat it knows the essences of the perceptibles through the logoi initself Opinion however is different from reasoning in that it doesnot know the causes Proclus employs the Aristotelian distinctionbetween lsquothe factrsquo (to hoti) and the explanation (see Post An )in order to convey the difference between opinion and scientificunderstanding (epistēmē) Such a combination of Platonic andAristotelian elements was indeed not new and section (c) also

Section (b) is a mere corollary to (a) and focuses on the relation of intellectand reason to pleasure and desire

It is noteworthy that the use of this Aristotelian distinction within an overallPlatonist doctrinal framework is already well attested in the anonymous commen-tary on the Theaetetus (col ndash)



has the function of setting late antique classifications of reasoningagainst their post-Aristotelian background S rightly refers toparallels in Alcinous who develops at some length the distinctionbetween lsquoopinativersquo and lsquoscientificrsquo reason in Didaskalikos ch (parts of which are translated in (a)ndash ndash ndash ndash ndash Hermann) Alcinousrsquo epistemology actuallyprovides an early document of the combination of Platonic lsquoinna-tisticrsquo and Aristotelian lsquoabstractionistrsquo elements (with a distinctiveuse of Stoic terms and notions) which also characterizes the epis-temology of the commentators for example Porphyryrsquos longepistemological excursus in the commentary on Ptolemyrsquos Har-monics (ndash Duumlring) provides basically a much more developedand refined version of the same overall doctrine that we find inthe Didaskalikos further parallels can be found elsewhere in theancient commentators (and beyond)

By the end of (c) S has first outlined the main distinctionbetween discursive reason and intellect as presented in some lsquopro-grammaticrsquo texts then he has completed the overview of differentkinds of reasoning by discussing opinative reason Plato Aris-totle and the post-Aristotelian philosophical traditions have beenbrought into focus The survey may follow at this point a ratherconventional path with a somewhat predictable selection of themesfrom the commentators from Alexander of Aphrodisias onwards(phantasia and passive intellect active intellect etc) and somepassing references to Plotinus who obviously echoes these distinc-tions Such an overview however would not in any way conveythe distinctive character of the late antique discussions and S isperfectly aware of that Here as elsewhere Plotinus plays a key rolein that (i) he provides a most radical and peculiar interpretation ofthe philosophical ideas of his time and (ii) his distinctive theoriesturn out to be crucial for understanding the later tradition

(b) Plotinus

Sections (d) (e) and (f) then are devoted to distinctive Plotiniantheories (lsquoNon-discursive thought is it propositionalrsquo lsquoPlotinusrsquo

Further details in R Chiaradonna lsquoPlatonismo e teoria della conoscenza stoicatra II e III secolo d Crsquo in M Bonazzi and C Helmig (eds) Platonic StoicismmdashStoic Platonism The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity (Leuven) ndash

See the excellent selection of texts in Logic and Metaphysics (c)ii ndashlsquoAristotelian assembled concepts and Platonic recollected conceptsrsquo



undescended soulrsquo lsquoThe unconsciousrsquo) most reasonably S comesback to the commentators only after presenting the main aspectsof Plotinusrsquo epistemology Section (d) focuses on a much-debatedissue that of the lsquopropositionalrsquo or lsquo non-propositionalrsquo character ofnon-discursive thought The survey is predictably opened by twocelebrated Aristotelian texts DA bndash and Metaph Θ bndash notoriously Aristotle refers here to the act of thinkingof incomposite subjects (adiaireta asuntheta) in which we do notpredicate anything of anything nor make an assertion S resistsa non-propositional interpretation of the passages and argues thatAristotle could be thinking of definitions of non-complex entities

More than twenty years ago S claimed in a famous debate withA C Lloyd that the same holds for Plotinusrsquo non-discursive think-ing of divine Intellect which according to S could be interpretedas propositional Against S Lloyd argued that the thinking of theIntellect is a totum simul and is so unified that it does not involveas such any complexity accordingly the non-discursive thinkingof the Intellect should be opposed sharply to discursive and propo-sitional reason (for any proposition is composed of at least a sub-ject and a predicate) Interestingly in the intervening years Shas changed his mind in the Sourcebook he sides with Lloyd andremarks soberly that lsquoin Plotinus however as Lloyd replied to So-rabji the thinking of intellect is viewed as non-propositional in con-trast to the discursive thinking of reasonrsquo (Psychology ) lsquoHow-everrsquo marks the distinction from Aristotle as S implicitly suggeststhen it is in Plotinus that a fully developed theory of intellectualnon-discursive and non-propositional thinking comes up for thefirst time in ancient philosophy (such a conclusion is obviously opento different assessments and Plotinusrsquo contribution to ancient epis-temologymay also be criticized as entailing extra-rational features)Interestingly since the publication of the Sourcebook some substan-tial studies have been devoted to Plotinusrsquo theory of Intellect In ge-neral Lloydrsquos conclusions are accepted but only in a qualified wayIt is generally agreed that the thinking of Intellect is not proposi-tional and does not require conformity to external things or statesof affairs in order to be true (see [] ndash) but it has also

See R Sorabji Necessity Cause and Blame Perspectives on Aristotlersquos Theory(London and Ithaca NY ) ndash

See R Sorabji Time Creation and the Continuum [Time Creation] (Londonand Ithaca NY ) ndash (lsquoMyths about Non-Propositional Thoughtrsquo) A CLloyd lsquoNon-Propositional Thought in Plotinusrsquo Phronesis () ndash



been noted that intellectual thought is intrinsically multiple andcomplex although the structure of such a perfectly interconnec-ted multiplicity differs from that of discursive reason The merecharacterization of Intellect as lsquoall at oncersquo and the distinction fromdiscursive reasoning run the risk of conveying (without further qua-lification) the false idea that intellectual thinking is an intrinsicallysimple and undifferentiated intuition

Srsquos selection of Plotinian texts on non-propositional intellectcontains some famous passages from [] ndash [] [] These texts are extremely important for understandingPlotinusrsquo doctrine but in order to get an adequate idea of theissues involved in non-propositional thinking one should alsoadd some further passages which S presents in different sec-tions in particular Plotinusrsquo views of non-discursive thinking areclosely connected with his highly distinctive interpretation of thelsquoAristotelianrsquo thesis concerning the identity between intellect andintelligible (texts in (k)ndash) and with his ideas on self-reflexivethinking and self-awareness (see (a)ndash where S includes sub-stantial parts of the key chapter [] ) Unfortunately suchconnections are not always made sufficiently explicit perhaps amore substantial list of cross-references would have made the useof the Sourcebook easier (and more fruitful)

Such a minor objection however should not conceal the greatmerits of Srsquos treatment By his arrangement S draws attentionto the double position of Plotinus in late antique thought on theone hand Plotinus establishes the overall philosophical backgroundfor later Platonists on the other hand later Platonists often qualify(and even reject) Plotinusrsquo most distinctive theories The pictureof lsquoancient Neoplatonismrsquo as a basically homogeneous tradition ofthought that smoothly evolved from Plotinus to the late Neopla-tonists as if from the implicit to the explicit is then somewhatoversimplified Srsquos admirable synthesis makes this fact extremely

See P Remes Plotinus on Self The Philosophy of the lsquoWersquo (Cambridge )ndash E K Emilsson Plotinus on Intellect (Oxford ) and ndash has in-terestingly come to the conclusion that non-discursive thought is complex (againstLloyd) but non-propositional (against Srsquos early view)

For a nice statement of this view see I Hadot lsquoSimplicius In Cat p ndash Kalbfleisch An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient Com-mentaryrsquo Rheinisches Museum () ndash at lsquoThe Neoplatonic systemevolves constantly towards an ever more pronounced systematization and an evermore precise diversification of the various levels of reality all the while maintain-ing its identity so that there is evolution but not revolutionrsquo (my italics) Despite



clear and this is one of the workrsquos most important merits Thecomplex and ambivalent position of later Platonists toward Ploti-nus emerges in section (d) S refers to a number of passages inProclus where higher thinking is lsquoun-Plotinicallyrsquo conceived of aspropositional (see In Parm ndash Klibansky=(d)) How-ever S also points out that other passages in Proclus seem to go theother way and contrast intellect which thinks Forms lsquoall as onersquowith discursive reason which sees them one by one (see In Parm ff Steel etc) To say the least Proclus does not always seemto share Plotinusrsquo care in distinguishing higher and lower forms ofthinking It is however in section (e) that Plotinusrsquo peculiar posi-tion in the history of late antique philosophy emerges in full clarityThis section is devoted to Plotinusrsquo celebrated doctrine accordingto which a part of each individualrsquos human soul does not descendfrom the intelligible world this undescended aspect of the indivi-dual soul makes each single man in principle capable of sharing theperfect life and the non-discursive thinking that belong to the di-vine Intellect

In his short presentation S argues that the undescended part ofthe soul is lsquolike Aristotlersquos active intellect uninterruptedly think-ing and this requires the further idea that the thought is usuallyunconsciousrsquo (Psychology ndash) Indeed the connection betweenPlotinusrsquo undescended soul and Aristotlersquos active intellect is wellestablished it was brought forth by the ancient commentators(more on that below) and this idea was fully developed by PhilipMerlan who believed that Plotinus aimed to solve by his theorysome intrinsic difficulties of Aristotlersquos theory of active intellectas interpreted by Alexander of Aphrodisias Yet here more thanelsewhere S should arguably have included more of the Platonic

the criticisms levelled at many of his conclusions the overall picture of late antiquethought drawn by K Praechter in his masterly article lsquoRichtungen und Schulen imNeuplatonismusrsquo in Carl Robert zum Maumlrz Genethliakon Uumlberreicht vonder Graeca Halensis (Berlin ) ndash (repr in Kleine Schriften ndash) is inour view still perfectly convincing

See P Merlan Monopsychism Mysticism Metaconsciousness Problems of theSoul in the Neo-Aristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition nd edn (The Hague ) ff ndash A survey of the principal interpretations of Plotinusrsquo undescended soulis given byALinguiti lsquoLa felicitagrave dellrsquoanima non discesarsquo in A Brancacci (ed)An-tichi e moderni nella filosofia di etagrave imperiale (Naples ) ndash at ndash Forfurther discussion see C Tornau lsquoQursquoest-ce qursquoun individu Uniteacute individualiteacute etconscience de soi dans la meacutetaphysique plotinienne de lrsquoacircmersquo Eacutetudes philosophiques() ndash



background of Plotinusrsquo theory which (as argued by T A Szlezaacuteksome thirty years ago) is actually overwhelming Indeed Plotinusrsquocharacterization of the undescended soul starts from the interpre-tation of some well-known Platonic texts (the myth about thehyper-ouranic vision of Phdr ff the description of the soulrsquostrue nature in Rep ndash and further passages from thePhaedo and the Timaeus) and a correct assessment of this theorycannot be separated from that of Plotinusrsquo reading of Plato Yet forall of its partiality Srsquos survey draws attention successfully to thephilosophical significance of Plotinusrsquo theory and to its positionfor the later tradition to a certain extent the lack of interest in thePlatonic exegetical background is even refreshing As a matter offact the overemphasizing of the Platonic background of Plotinusrsquoundescended soul can easily lead to disappointing results here asalways a mere (somewhat pedantic) enumeration of parallels andnaiumlve source-hunting by no means suffice for understanding thecharacter of Plotinusrsquo distinctive philosophical approach Plotinusovertly connects his views on the soul to the interpretation of somecontroversial passages in Plato (see esp [] ndash) but itwould be grossly misleading to argue that Plotinusrsquo theory can beexplained as an exegetical attempt to make sense of some proble-matic texts from the dialogues The opposite is rather the case as amatter of fact Plotinusrsquo reading of Plato is constantly determinedby his distinctive philosophical project and by the basic ideas thatshape his lsquoversionrsquo of Platonism (for example such lsquobasic ideasrsquoare different from those that shape the Platonism of PorphyryIamblichus or Proclus)

Notoriously Plotinusrsquo views on the higher soul were debatedby later Platonists and most of Plotinusrsquo successors (except forTheodorus of Asine whose views on the undescended soul are

See T A Szlezaacutek Platon und Aristoteles in der Nuslehre Plotins (Basle andStuttgart ) ndash

Plotinusrsquo views on the undescended soul are arguably part of a highly coherentphilosophical project (Plotinusrsquo distinctive lsquokind of Platonismrsquo) based on the ideathat intelligible realities should be conceived of lsquoin themselvesrsquo in an adequate wayand according to their appropriate principles (see [] ndash) without in any waytaking perceptible realities and their structure as a starting-point for the understand-ing of true beings Accordingly the undescended soul lays the epistemological basisfor the development of a lsquoscience of intelligible being as suchrsquo in that it makes it pos-sible (even lsquohere belowrsquo before the separation of our soul from the body see eg [] ndash) to understand appropriately the nature of intelligible being and to shareits distinctive non-discursive way of thinking Further details in R ChiaradonnaPlotino (Rome ) ndash



however impossible to determine with precision) rejected histheory Srsquos survey starts predictably with [] ndash=(e)where Plotinus argues (against the opinion of other philosopherswhose identity is a matter of debate) that lsquonot even our soul des-cends in its entirety but a part of it remains in the IntelligiblersquoThis passage is followed by another famous text Proclus In Tim iii ndash Diehl=(e) (quoting Iamblichusrsquo objec-tions) whose argument is aimed against the view of Plotinus andTheodorus lsquowho take care to preserve an impassible element in usone which is always in contemplationrsquo The passages in (e) makeit impressively clear how much Plotinusrsquo views were discussed andcriticized by later Platonists Indeed several texts from Proclushave an extremely important position in the reception of Plotinusrsquoideas (see especially the famous prop from ET=(e)) butit is also extremely interesting to remark how deeply Plotinusrsquoundescended soul shaped the philosophical background of theAristotelian commentary tradition S includes three passagesfrom lsquoSimpliciusrsquorsquo commentary on De anima and lsquoPhiloponusrsquorsquocommentary on DA which present a criticism of Plotinusrsquo

See C Steel Il Seacute che cambia lrsquoanima nel tardo Neoplatonismo Giamblico Da-mascio e Prisciano ed L IMartone (Bari ) (Italian updated edition of C SteelThe Changing Self A Study on the Soul in Later Neoplatonism Iamblichus Dama-scius and Priscianus (Brussels ))

Significantly despite his overt criticism Iamblichus is sometimes regarded bythe later tradition as a defender of the undescended soul and this may refer to thefact that he apparently allowed something of the kind for certain special souls (see(e)ndash and the texts collected in Psychology (b) lsquoTheurgyrsquo) Yet even if this istrue one should not overemphasize the similarity between Iamblichus and Plotinusas a matter of fact Plotinusrsquo epistemological assumptions which underlie his ideaof the higher soul refer to the cognitive faculties of each man as such and are notdesigned to characterize the status of a special group of lsquopurersquo souls as opposed tothe others

Srsquos approach in this section parallels that of H Blumenthal Aristotle and Neo-platonism in Late Antiquity Interpretations of De anima [Aristotle andNeoplatonism](Ithaca NY )

The authorship of these commentaries is a much-debated question As arguedby Bossier and Steelmdashand more recently by C Steel in Priscian On TheophrastusrsquoOn Sense-Perception (trans P Huby) with lsquoSimpliciusrsquo On Aristotlersquos On the Soul ndash (trans C Steel) in collaboration with J O Urmson notes by P Laut-ner (London ) ndashmdashPriscianus Lydus is probably the author of lsquoSimpli-ciusrsquorsquo commentary (contra see I Hadot lsquoSimplicius or Priscianus On the Authorof the Commentary on Aristotlersquos De anima (CAG IX) A Methodological StudyrsquoMnemosyne () ndash) further discussion in M Perkams Selbstbewusstseinin der Spaumltantike Die neuplatonische Kommentare zu Aristoteles De anima (Berlinand New York ) As argued by Hayduck Stephanus of Alexandria is prob-ably the author of lsquoPhiloponusrsquorsquo commentary see W Charlton (trans and comm)



views that (i) what Aristotle lsquocalls ldquoactual intellectrdquo is human intel-lect that thinks alwaysrsquo (lsquoPhiloprsquo In DA ndash Hayduck=(e)) and (ii) a part of us remains unchanging and pure so that itdoes not proceed altogether into coming to be (lsquoSimplrsquo In DA ndash Hayduck=(e))

The distinction between active and passive intellect is probablythe most studied doctrine of the ancient commentators (starting atleast from Morauxrsquos classic book on Alexander of Aphrodisias)

and Srsquos outline follows a well-established path After the canonicalreference to DA andash (=(g)) the list includes a passageon Theophrastus from Themistius (In DA ndash Heinze=(g) see FHSampG A) and Alexanderrsquos famous text (DA ndash Bruns=(g)) where the active intellect is equated with thefirst cause (ie God) Alexanderrsquos views are expounded in detail in(g)ndash here the reader can find a convenient selection of textsfrom hisDe anima and from theMantissa sect (=De intellectu) whichillustrate Alexanderrsquos views on the causal role of active intellect inthe formation of concepts (notoriously lsquoAlexanderrsquosrsquo accounts inthe two works have sometimes been regarded as incompatible andthe authorship of the De intellectu is disputed) The later tradi-tion is also represented by a selection of passages from ThemistiuslsquoPhiloponusrsquo and lsquoSimpliciusrsquo S includes a long text from lsquoPhilo-ponusrsquo In DA ( ndash Hayduck=(g)) where somecanonical opinions on active intellect are first expounded in detailand then criticized lsquoPhiloponusrsquorsquo doxography includes PlotinusMarinus Plutarch of Athens and Alexander Plutarch of Athensand lsquoPhiloponusrsquo think that the active intellect is human and des-cended Marinus thinks it is an angelic or daemonic being Plotinusan undescended soul Alexander God It is worth noting again howfar Plotinusrsquo views are fully integrated within late antique exegesisof Aristotle to the extent that Plotinus is actually treated as one ofthe commentators and his ideas on the higher soul are regarded asan exegesis of Aristotle

lsquoPhiloponusrsquo On Aristotle On the Soul ndash (London ) ndash and C TornaulsquoBemerkungen zu Stephanos von Alexandria Plotin und Plutarch von Athenrsquo [lsquoBe-merkungenrsquo] Elenchos () ndash

See P Moraux Alexandre drsquoAphrodise exeacutegegravete de la noeacutetique drsquoAristote (Liegravegeand Paris )

See now the discussion in R Sharples (ed and comm) Alexander Aphrodisi-ensis De anima libri mantissa (Berlin and New York ) ndash

On Plotinusrsquo position in the ps-Philoponus doxography see the remarks in Blu-



This is but an example of Srsquos illuminating use of Plotinus as acursory reading of the indexes suffices to make clear passages fromthe Enneads are quoted in virtually every chapter of the SourcebookIndeed it has often been noted well before Srsquos Sourcebook that thecommentators occasionally discuss Plotinus (suffice it to refer tothe abundant literature on the relation between Plotinusrsquo treatmentof the categories in Enn ndash [ndash] and the later commentarytradition from Porphyry onwards) Yet Srsquos survey reveals for thefirst time how extensive and systematic is the presence of Ploti-nus in the shaping of late antique exegesis of Aristotle Plotinushas in this respect a position parallel to that of Alexander of Aph-rodisias as both philosophers lay the basis for the later receptionof Aristotle Obviously this does not mean that their views wereunanimously accepted (as noted above the contrary is quite oftenthe case) butmdashas S puts itmdashwithout constantly referring to Ploti-nusrsquo most distinctive theories it is simply impossible to understandthe background ideas that the later commentators were discussingInterestingly the presence of Plotinus in the later commentarieson Aristotle differs significantly from that of the Platonists beforePlotinus Indeed the Neoplatonist commentators refer occasion-ally to the pre-Plotinian Platonic authors this holds especially forthe interpretation of the Categories where as emerges from Sim-plicius Platonists such as Eudorus Nicostratus or Atticus playeda significant role and sometimes even laid the basis for Plotinusrsquodiscussion Yet the number and the significance of such referencesare globally modest and this (among other things) may suggest thatPlatonists before Plotinus were with some exceptions not exten-sively familiar with Aristotle

menthalAristotle andNeoplatonism and and the in-depth discussion inTor-nau lsquoBemerkungenrsquo

There is an extensive literature on this see the survey in R ChiaradonnaSostanza movimento analogia Plotino critico di Aristotele (Naples ) ndash

The issue is however controversial G Karamanolis Plato and Aristotle inAgreement Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry [Agreement] (Oxford) has recently discussed a considerable amount of evidence and presented in-genious arguments in favour of the opposite conclusion ie that Platonists fromAntiochus onwards were extensively acquainted with Aristotle For a criticism ofsome of his conclusions see R Chiaradonnarsquos review in Archiv fuumlr Geschichte derPhilosophie () ndash



(c) to

As a matter of fact what we know about philosophy from to shows that Aristotelianism was but one philosophicalcurrent among others (the same holds for Platonism in its multiplevarieties) Notoriously Hellenistic philosophies were alive wellinto the second century and the practice of commenting on Aris-totlersquos school treatises did not usually extend outside Peripateticphilosophers This general conclusion obviously allows for someremarkable exceptions for example Eudorus certainly knew Cat-egories Metaphysics Α and possibly other parts of the Metaphysicsthe Categories were intensively debated among Platonists andStoics the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus is acquain-ted with (parts of) Aristotlersquos Topics and Plutarch is at ease withAristotlersquos ethics The significance of such exceptions shouldhowever not be overestimated in fact even those pre-PlotinianPlatonist philosophers who actually discussed Aristotelian doc-trines and notions often do not seem to rely on a wide reading ofthe school treatises Their discussions are rather schematic to theextent that they have not unreasonably been understood as beingbased on second-hand sources rather than on a direct knowledgeof Aristotlersquos works even if this hypothesis is not accepted itcan plausibly be assumed that close study of Aristotlersquos corpuswas not the main focus of Platonists before Plotinus This situ-ation changes somewhat abruptly after when the lsquoage of

On philosophy from to see now the papers collected in R WSharples and R Sorabji (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophy ndash [Greekand Roman Philosophy] vols (London )

Galen (who however cannot be regarded as a Platonist without substantialqualifications) represents the only true exception to this see the list of his exe-getical works on Aristotle in Lib prop K= ndash Boudon-Millot Infact Porphyry can be regarded as the first Platonist commentator on Aristotlesee G Karamanolis lsquoPorphyry The First Platonist Commentator on Aristotlersquoin Adamson Baltussen and Stone (eds) Philosophy Science and Exegesis indash

On Eudorus see M Bonazzi lsquoEudorus of Alexandria and Early Imperial Plato-nismrsquo in Sharples and Sorabji (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophy ndash on theanonymous commentator on Platorsquos Theaetetus see D Sedleyrsquos commentary in GBastianini and D Sedley (ed and comm) Commentarium in Platonis Theaetetumin Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini iii (Florence ) ndash at ndash onPlutarch and Aristotlersquos ethics see Karamanolis Agreement ndash See the surveyin P Moraux Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander vonAphrodisias vol ii [Aristotelismus ii] (Berlin and New York )

See eg the remarks on Atticus in P Moraux Aristotelismus ii



the commentatorsrsquo begins Alexander of Aphrodisias had a keyposition in this transition as he developed (or at least codified) asystematic overall interpretation of Aristotle whose impact on laterthinkers was immense the fact that Alexander was probably thelast Aristotelian commentator should not conceal his importancefor the later Platonist tradition where Aristotle was very often readand understood through Alexanderrsquos exegesis

It was arguably Alexanderrsquos reading that (at least in part) laidthe basis for Plotinusrsquo constant critical dialogue with Aristotlethe parallels between Plotinus and Alexander (on issues such asthe immanent form the structure of the soul matter providenceand its causality etc) are actually too distinctive to depend merelyon their common background Plotinusrsquo extensive knowledge ofAristotlersquos treatises (which it is worth repeating would probably

That the transition from the nd to the rd cent marks a crucial turn inthe history of ancient philosophy is remarked by eg M Frede lsquoEpiloguersquo in K AAlgra J Barnes J Mansfeld and M Schofield (eds) The Cambridge History ofHellenistic Philosophy (Cambridge ) ndash at ndash

See R W Sharples lsquoThe School of Alexanderrsquo in Sorabji (ed) AristotleTransformed ndash at lsquoas far as our information goes he seems to mark theend of a distinctive and continuous Peripatetic traditionrsquo On Themistiusrsquo Peripa-tetic allegiance and its limits see the judicious remarks in Blumenthal Aristotle andNeoplatonism

Alexanderrsquos position for the later commentators has been the subject of somerecent studies which show that Alexander provides the standard exegesis of Aris-totle for the later tradition On the relation between Porphyryrsquos views on universalsand those of Alexander see Logic andMetaphysics ndash ((f)) and R ChiaradonnalsquoWhat is Porphyryrsquos Isagogersquo Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale () ndash on the relation between Syrianus and Alexander see C Luna Troiseacutetudes sur la tradition des commentaires anciens agrave la Meacutetaphysique drsquoAristote (Leiden) ndash It is worth quoting in full Lunarsquos remarks at lsquoLrsquoattitude de Syri-anus agrave lrsquoeacutegard drsquoAlexandre est claire le commentaire drsquoAlexandre fournit lrsquoexeacutegegraveselitteacuterale preacutecise et deacutefinitive qui rend en quelque sorte superflu toute tentativedrsquoexpliquer le texte aristoteacutelicienrsquo On Alexander as a source of Simpliciusrsquo In Physsee M Rashed Alexandre drsquoAphrodise Commentaire perdu agrave la Physique drsquoAristoteLes scholies byzantines (Berlin and New York forthcoming) On Alexanderrsquos In Decaelo and its role for the later commentators see A RescignoAlessandro di AfrodisiaCommentario al De caelo di Aristotele Frammenti del primo libro (Amsterdam )Further examples could be added

This is again a debated issue but Plotinusrsquo dependence on Alexanderrsquos read-ing of Aristotle can be seen as a well-established fact see the status quaestionis inR W Sharples lsquoAlexander of Aphrodisias Scholasticism and Innovationrsquo in Auf-stieg und Niedergang der roumlmischen Welt II (Berlin and New York ) ndash at ndash Among more recent studies see eg K Corrigan Plotinusrsquo Theory ofMatter-Evil and the Question of Substance Plato Aristotle and Alexander of Aphro-disias (Leuven ) More details in R Chiaradonna lsquoHyleacutemorphisme et causaliteacutedes intelligibles Plotin et Alexandre drsquoAphrodisersquo Eacutetudes philosophiques ()ndash



not have been possible without Alexander) constitutes a majorchange from the previous Platonists Of course one might objectto the present account that Plotinusrsquo works have survived whereasthose of the previous Platonists did not this should recommendprudence in assessing his historical position furthermore Ploti-nusrsquo familiarity with Aristotle may perhaps be regarded as a legacyof the (unwritten) teaching of Ammonius Sacca Such objectionsmay not be answered conclusively and prudence is obviously morethan recommended in dealing with such controversial issues how-ever it can hardly be denied that the extant evidence on Platonistsbefore Plotinus as well as that on Plotinusrsquo posterity among thelater commentators strongly suggests that he marked a real turnin the Platonist reception of Aristotle

Thus the hypothesis according to which Plotinusrsquo extensiveknowledge of Aristotle was a distinctively new feature of his Pla-tonism and one that relied heavily on the work of Alexander ofAphrodisias remains the more attractive one What persisted inthe later Neoplatonists was however not Plotinusrsquo distinctivephilosophical approach his most original theories (such as the un-descendend soul the conception of matter the views on physicalsubstance and the categories) are often polemically targeted bythe later commentators Despite recent attempts to argue for theopposite conclusion the conventional opinion according to whichPorphyryrsquos harmonizing of Plato and Aristotle is not prepared atall by Plotinus but rather marks a reaction against Plotinusrsquo criticalapproach appears basically correct What remained of Plotinusrsquoattitude towards Aristotle was instead the profound knowledge ofthe school treatises and the use of Aristotle (as well as of the pre-Plotinian Aristotle commentary tradition) at the core of PlatonismFrom Plotinus onwards ancient philosophy is generally connectedto the reading and interpretation of Platorsquos and Aristotlersquos works

See Photiusrsquo excerpts from Hierocles which provide a summary of Ammoniusrsquoviews on the agreement between Plato and Aristotle lsquoas regards the essential andmost necessary doctrinesrsquo (Bibl cod andash=T Schwyzer see also cod andash=T Schwyzer cod andash=T Schwyzer cod andash=T Schwyzer) The assessment of Hieroclesrsquo report is however a de-bated issue see the recent discussion in Karamanolis Agreement ndash (furtherdiscussion in Chiaradonnarsquos review mentioned above n )

For a recent defence of the conventional interpretation see J Barnes lsquoldquoTherewas an old person from Tyrerdquo Critical Notice of George Karamanolis and AnneSheppard (eds) Studies on Porphyry Bulletin of the Institute of Classical StudiesSupplement London rsquo Rhizai () ndash at ndash



to the extent that the reading of Aristotlersquos school treatises came tobe part of the Neoplatonist curriculum

Alexander of Aphrodisiasrsquo historical position is double he con-cludes the first part of the ancient commentary tradition (that ofthe Aristotelian commentators from Andronicus onwards) and pre-pares by his systematic reading the reception of Aristotlersquos treatiseswithin the Platonist tradition fromPlotinus and Porphyry onwardsIndeed Alexanderrsquos commentary work can be regarded as the cul-mination of the tradition that starts in the age of Andronicus yetthis opinion needs substantial qualification In particular it wouldbe wrong to argue that the commentators before Alexander providenothing but imperfect anticipations of his distinctive way of read-ing Aristotle the opposite is rather the case and what we know ofthe commentary tradition before Alexander suggests that he reactedagainst alternative readings of Aristotle developed by the previousAristotelian exegetes (more on that below) As S duly remarks theworks of the Aristotelian commentators before Alexander are al-most completely lost lsquoThe earliest commentaries on Aristotle stillextant are by members of the Aristotelian (or Peripatetic) school inthe second century rsquo (lsquoIntroductionrsquo ) S quotes in the Source-book Aspasiusrsquo commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics (see Psycho-logy (b) (b) (b) Physics (a)) and refers extensivelyto Alexander but apart from occasional references he neglectsthe earlier commentators whose philosophical ideas have been thefocus of a masterly survey in Paul Morauxrsquos Der Aristotelismus beiden Griechen Though perhaps unavoidable this choice exacts acertain price Admittedly the earlier works are lost but later com-mentators (especially Simplicius) report several fragments of andtestimonia concerning the earlier tradition which call for atten-

For example Xenarchusrsquo views on the composition of the heavens are ex-pounded in detail at Physics (a)

See P Moraux Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexan-der von Aphrodisias vol i [Aristotelismus i] (Berlin and New York ) See alsoH B Gottschalk lsquoAristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the Time ofCicero to the End of the Second Century rsquo in Aufstieg und Niedergang der roumlmi-schen Welt II (Berlin and New York ) ndash (part of this paper wasreprinted under the title lsquoThe Earliest Aristotelian Commentatorsrsquo in Sorabji (ed)Aristotle Transformed ndash)

See below at the end of this section Possibly S was deliberately reserving theearlier period of philosophy to the two-volume collection of essays which he went onto co-edit with Robert W Sharples in on Greek and Roman philosophy from to (see above n )



tion While Srsquos choice of systematically integrating Plotinus in theSourcebook proves to be illuminating for understanding the back-ground ideas of the Neoplatonist commentators his (possibly de-liberate) neglect of the earlier commentators has the unwelcomeconsequence of concealing the origins of several debates that sig-nificantly shaped late antique philosophy Again the discussion ofone example will help to clarify this issue

Chapter in Logic and Metaphysics is devoted to lsquoCategoriesrsquoSection (a) includes a long and famous text from Simpliciusrsquo com-mentary on the Categories ( ndash Kalbfleisch) which providesan overview of the previous exegetical works on the treatise thetext is preceded by a substantial (and excellent) presentation whereS synthetically outlines the history of the reception of the Cat-egories from the early commentators in the first century to Sim-plicius In this way section (a) provides an extremely clear andincisive prelude to the whole of part which focuses on the mostimportant issues of the ancient commentary tradition on the Cat-egories (the subject-matter of the treatise the reasons for Aristotlersquoslist of categories Plotinusrsquo attacks and the replies by the later com-mentators etc) While Plotinus has a prominent position in thediscussion (which is hardly surprising) the early commentators arenot brought into focus Yet as S himself notes in the presenta-tion of (a) the early commentaries from that of Andronicus hadfocused above all on the Categories and this treatise had a tre-mendous impact on the early debates on Aristotle (the Categorieswere actually read and interpreted not only by Aristotelian philo-sophers but also by Platonists and Stoics) It has recently beenargued that the early interest in the Categories around the first cen-tury was somehow connected to the Hellenistic philosophicalbackground of the period this is an extremely interesting hypo-thesis one that needs further scrutiny Be that as it may it is

This text has been the focus of much interest see I Hadot lsquoSimplicius In Catp ndash Kalbfleischrsquo See Logic and Metaphysics

See R W Sharples lsquoldquoHabent sua fata libellirdquo Aristotlersquos Categories in the FirstCentury rsquo Acta Antiqua Hungarica () ndash According to Sharplesthe Categories aroused interest because it did not easily fit into the standard Helle-nistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas more than Aristotlersquos otherworks the Categories revealed aspects of Aristotlersquos thought that had become unfa-miliar during the Hellenistic period Such a hypothesis is ingenious but deservesfurther scrutiny and is open to some objections First there are obvious lsquomaterialrsquoreasons which may explain the success of Aristotlersquos Categories the treatise is shortand relatively easy to handle it was much simpler to engage in a detailed commen-



worth noting that the views of commentators such as Andronicusof Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon sound peculiar to those who arefamiliar with the philosophy of their later lsquocolleaguesrsquo for examplethe theory of the essential form which has a pivotal position in thelate antique reception of Aristotle is strikingly neglected by theearly commentators whose reading of Aristotle is instead lsquocentredon the Categoriesrsquo It is then extremely important to distinguishtheir overall approach from that of the later commentators fromAlexander of Aphrodisias onwards and it may safely be assumedthat Alexander developed some of his distinctive interpretations asa criticism of earlier exegetes

Section (y) presents a selection of texts which focus on the prob-lem lsquoIs form substance or an accident of matterrsquo As always Soutlines clearly the issue at stake lsquoOutside the Categories Aristotletreats form as the most serious candidate for the honorific title ofsubstance One might therefore not expect it to be treated as an ac-cident And Alexander () emphasizes that form is not related tomatter in the way that an accident is present in a substancersquo (Logicand Metaphysics ) Texts (y)ndash (Alex Aphr Mant ndash Bruns Quaest ndash Bruns Quaest ndash Bruns) contain a substantial set of arguments by Alexan-der whose aim is to demonstrate that the relation of the form to thematter is different from the en hupokeimenōi einai relation whichaccording to Cat andash connects accidents to their substan-tial subject Significantly arguments such as those developed inAlexander are reported by Simplicius who attributes them to Por-phyryrsquos lost great commentary Ad Gedalium (see Simpl In Cat ndash Kalbfleisch=(y)=Porph F Smith) There is howevera crucial fact that does not emerge in Srsquos presentation if Alex-

tary on it than say to prepare a commentary on the central books of theMetaphysicsSecondly it may perhaps be argued contra Sharples that the Categories arousedinterest just because it provided a synthetic non-Stoic treatment of doctrines andnotions which were well known to philosophers versed in Stoic philosophy such asthe theory of predication and the notions of οὐσία lsquoqualityrsquo lsquorelativersquo lsquorelatively dis-posedrsquo etc Commenting on the Categories was then an extremely straightforwardway to present a united front against the Stoics

M Rashed Essentialisme Alexandre drsquoAphrodise entre logique physique et cos-mologie [Essentialisme] (Berlin and New York ) see also id lsquoPrioriteacute delrsquoεἶδος ou du γένος entre Andronicos et Alexandre vestiges arabes et grecs ineacuteditsrsquoArabic Sciences and Philosophy () ndash

This overall interpretation is developed by M Rashed in the studies mentionedin the immediately preceding note



ander and his followers spend so much effort demonstrating thatform is not an accident of matter the reason is that someone be-fore them had held the precise view that they reject and treatedAristotlersquos substantial form as an accident of matter Porphyryrsquosargument quoted by S is actually presented by Simplicius as a re-sponse to Boethus of Sidon whose views on substance Simpliciusparaphrases in detail (In Cat ndash Kalbfleisch) ApparentlyBoethus ascribed a privileged status to the criteria of substantia-lity set forth in the Categories (most notably the fact of lsquonot beingin a subjectrsquo) so that he did not refrain from regarding Aristotlersquosessential form (which as he notes Aristotle treats lsquoelsewherersquo ἐνἄλλοις Simpl In Cat Kalbfleisch) as falling outside substance(ie in non-substantial categories) since it is lsquoin something elsersquo (ἐνἄλλῳ Kalbfleisch) ie in matter Boethusrsquo arguments de-serve a close scrutiny which is not possible here but at least oneconclusion may plausibly be drawn namely that Alexanderrsquos in-sistence on the fact that substantial form lsquois not in a subjectrsquo wasclosely connected to the discussion of Boethusrsquo interpretation (Por-phyry probably paraphrased Alexanderrsquos objections and Simpliciusquoted Porphyry either directly or via Iamblichus) The theory ofsubstantial eidos is arguably the most distinctive aspect of Alexan-derrsquos lsquoessentialistrsquo reading of Aristotle and its impact on the latertradition was immense But it is extremely important to remarkthat Alexanderrsquos reading was not created in vitro rather it camefrom the discussion of previous interpretations which developed adifferent overall approach to Aristotle

This is but one example a systematic overview of Andronicusrsquoand Boethusrsquo ideas (but also of those of Eudorus or the pseudo-Pythagorean treatises on categories) could arguably enrich signifi-cantly not only the chapter on categories but also that on universals(which provides however a masterly treatment of the topic fromPlato to the late commentators and is certainly one of the best partsof the Sourcebook) The complex and inevitably speculative de-

More details in T Reinhardt lsquoAndronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon onAristotlersquos Categoriesrsquo in Sharples and Sorabji (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophyndash at ndash Morauxrsquos survey of Boethus in Aristotelismus i ndash is still un-surpassed See again Rashed Essentialisme

Srsquos omission of the earlier period was certainly remedied when the collection ofpapers edited with R W Sharples appeared see Sharples and Sorabji (eds) Greekand Roman Philosophy ii ndash index snn lsquoBoethusrsquo lsquoAndronicusrsquo lsquoEudorusrsquolsquoLuciusrsquo lsquoNicostratusrsquo A further attempt to fill the relevant part of the gap has now



tective work required on many fragments of the earlier commenta-tors may explain and will be thought by some to justify Srsquos be-lief that the earlier period could not be fitted into the format of hisSourcebook But still one may wish that more had been possible onthis issue

The Sourcebook and Islamic philosophy

S is well aware of the important role the Sourcebook will play inour future understanding of the transmission of Greek philosophyto the medieval world both in Arabic and in Latin At a certainlevel of generality this point can hardly be denied Be it throughthe Arabs or the Latin authors of late antiquity Augustine andBoethius in particular the Middle Ages were very well informedabout the concepts and methods of the commentators It will thusbe tempting now that we have such a huge volume of potentiallsquosourcesrsquo translated into English and carefully explained to writethe history of philosophy up to Leibniz at least in a continuousfashion And it will be all the more tempting to see in the Arabicdiscussionsmdashwhich stand chronologically so close to the late Alex-andrian schoolmdashsomething like a piece of Greek commentarism inIslamic disguise Hence a word of warning for those inclined to pur-sue this path which has long been tempting and might well be evenmore attractive now that Srsquos Sourcebook makes the philosophy ofthe late antique commentators so much more accessible

Let us begin by noting a major difference between the Greek andthe Arabic age S insists in his lsquoIntroductionrsquo (ndash) on the com-plexity of the relationship in late antiquity between pagan philo-sophy and patristic thought For even if the two sides were oftensometimes engaged in fierce polemics it is none the less undeni-able that some convergences are strikingmdashthe affirmation in par-ticular of a Demiurgic causality of the world But this commonpoint makes the difference even more striking For there is prob-

beenmade byMGriffin lsquoThe Reception of Aristotlersquos Categories c to rsquo(diss Oxford )

See lsquoIntroductionrsquo lsquoThe book is intended to help specialists in other re-lated fields Islamicists Latinists theologians historians of science scholars of othertypes of commentary or of commentary on other languages andMedieval or Renais-sance scholars to name but a fewrsquo

On the role played by Ammonius in this issue see K Verrycken lsquoThe Meta-



ably no Christian thinker during the whole of antiquity who wouldhave considered himself as a lsquophilosopherrsquo The likely explanationfor this is that the great majority of the pagan philosophers upheldthree major theses which contradicted Christian dogma they wereready to accept a plurality of divine entities they did not believein the Christian Resurrection and they thought that the world hadexisted for ever in the past We must be alive to the fact that thesethree claims are not mere lsquophilosophicalrsquo theses but also importantelements of a general ideological framework which is at least inpart constitutive of the identity of the lsquophilosophersrsquo This fact isreflected by the organization of theSourcebook Although the periodtaken into consideration ( ndash) can be viewed as the goldenage of Greek and Latin patristics there is practically no text in itsthree thick volumes which could have been written by a Christianauthor of the Patrologia Graeca It is of course an open questionwhether the philosophy of Aristotlersquos commentators is the or onlya philosophy of their age But we cannot deny that from an externalpoint of view at least there was a nearly perfect overlap of religiousand professional identities Greek lsquophilosophersrsquo ie people defin-ing themselves as philosophoi were all pagans

In contrast to this situation some significant Muslim thinkersidentified themselves as lsquophilosophersrsquo (falāsifa) originatingthereby a major turn in the history of philosophy We must

physics of Ammonius Son of Hermeiasrsquo in Sorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformedndash

On this question see A J Festugiegravere LrsquoIdeacuteal religieux des grecs et lrsquoEacutevangile(Paris ) in his interesting lsquoexcursus Crsquo entitled lsquoAristote dans la litteacuteraturegrecque chreacutetienne jusqursquoagrave Theacuteodoretrsquo (ndash)

For Olympiodorus ϕιλόσοϕος still signifies lsquopagan thinkerrsquo (cf L G WesterinklsquoThe Alexandrian Commentatorsrsquo in Sorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformed ndash at lsquoto those classes of society which used to provide the students for the philoso-phical schools the word philosopher must have meant what Olympiodoros impliesit does a pagan philosopher Even the Christians who continued the work of Olym-piodorus did little to change this essentially pagan outlookrsquo Philoponus after hisChristian turn is not likely to have called himself a ϕιλόσοϕος The nickname lsquotheGrammarianrsquo is neither a mark of contempt coined by Simplicius nor a mere allu-sion to Philoponusrsquo professional status in Alexandria If Elias and David are some-times called ϕιλόσοϕος this meant only that they were professors of philosophy at theuniversity (cf Westerink loc cit) This makes the case of the Christian philosopherBoethius in the Latin West even more interesting

The first clear example we have of this appellation appears with al-Kindī nick-named as is well known lsquothe Philosopher of the Arabsrsquo who clearly saw himselfas a lsquophilosopherrsquo His major treatise in this field now only partially preserved wasprobably called On First Philosophy



be alive to what would be a paradox from the point of view ofGreek attitudes the fact that philosophy became a possible occu-pation for Abrahamic minds That does not amount to saying ofcourse that its lsquonaturalizationrsquo in a Muslim society was entirelysmooth and peaceful But the danger to it came not so much fromthe political side as from its professionalization ie its transfor-mation into one intellectual discipline among others which had tofind its place between rational theology on the one hand and themathematical sciences on the other

These important transformations explain why despite Srsquos ob-vious lack of interest in Neoplatonism as the Sufi ideology that inmany of its aspects it undoubtedly was his Sourcebook is actuallymore historical than so many papers and books recently written onlate ancient philosophy We have already alluded to this fact a parteante as it were in emphasizing Srsquos recognition of Plotinusrsquo decisiveinfluence on the commentatorsrsquo interpretation of Aristotle Butthat is true a parte post as well ie with respect to what Islamicphilosophers selected three or four centuries later from the hugecorpus of the Greek commentators It would in fact be easy to showthat the organization of the Sourcebook is very close to that of thefour most influential parts of Avicennarsquos Kitāb al-Shifā ᾿ which no-toriously gave its physiognomy to pre-modern philosophy book maps the Book of the Soul book the Physics and book combinessome chapters of the Logic with the book of the Metaphysics Somecorrespondences are so striking that the reader sometimes wonderswhether S following a regressive path from the manifest effects totheir hidden causes might not have composed his three volumeswith the structure of the Avicennian summa in mind

Avicenna would have been less surprised indeed thanmanymo-derns by the organization of the Sourcebook From a historiographi-cal point of view this statement is not without interest To say thatGreek philosophy in Arabic is mostly of Aristotelian inspiration isnot very illuminating in this regard since in some of its parts atleast its concepts and methods are deeply influenced by Neopla-tonic discussions rather than by Aristotle or even Alexander The

Our understanding of these two domains has been greatly improved in the lastdecades by the works of J van Ess and R Rashed See in particular J van Ess Theo-logie und Gesellschaft im und Jahrhundert Hidschra Eine Geschichte des religioumlsenDenkens im fruumlhen Islam vols (Berlin and New York ndash) and R Rashed LesMatheacutematiques infiniteacutesimales du IXe au XIe siegravecle vols (London ndash)

See above pp ndash and in particular



main difference seems rather to lie in the fact that many of theIslamic Aristoteliansmdashal-Fārābī Avicenna Avempace Averroesmdashderive from the commentators many of the problems they addressbut not the general ideology in which they are often embeddedFor they generally reject Porphyryrsquos (anti-Christian) agenda of har-monizing Plato and Aristotle Their rejection appears clearly inAvicenna and Averroes who attack at length every kind of refer-ence to Platonic Forms in their metaphysical texts But it is noless evident in the case of al-Fārābī once we realize that the bookOn the Harmonization of the Opinions of the Two Sages the DivinePlato and Aristotle was not written by him but very likely by aBaghdadi philosopher of the next generation To cut a long storyshort some (but not all) Islamic philosophers departed from theirGreek counterparts in being in a manner not dissimilar to thatof S in his Sourcebook more alive to the possibility of resolvingAristotelian problems with the help of the commentatorsmdashalbeitin non-Aristotelian waysmdashthan to that of building along their linesan ideological construction aimed at showing the basic agreementof Plato and Aristotle

We may start by noting an unresolved tension between chapters (lsquoNaturersquo) and (lsquoDivine Knowledge and Powerrsquo) of volume ii(Physics) of the Sourcebook The second of these themes can hardlybe considered to be genuinely Aristotelian nor even Platonic Itappears and develops slowly in Hellenistic and Roman philosophyand treatment of its complex evolution would need a book of itsown Srsquos selection of texts illustrates very well that the turning-point on this issue occurs between Plotinus and Iamblichus Fordespite some important differences on this theme as well as onothers Plotinus agrees with Alexander in limiting divine know-ledge of the world while Iamblichus introduces a principle thatknowledge takes its character from the knower not the known

See J LameerAl-Fārābī andAristotelian Syllogistics Greek Theory and IslamicPractice (Leiden and New York ) ndash and M Rashed lsquoOn the Authorshipof the Treatise On the Harmonization of the Opinions of the Two Sages Attributed toal-Fārābīrsquo [lsquoAuthorshiprsquo] Arabic Sciences and Philosophy () ndash

For the Hellenistic and Roman debate see M Mignucci lsquoLogic and Omni-science Alexander of Aphrodisias and Proclusrsquo Oxford Studies in Ancient Philo-sophy () ndash For the question of Godrsquos knowledge of the terms of life seeW Lackner (ed trans comm) Nikephoros Blemmydes Gegen die Vorherbestim-mung der Todesstunde (Athens and Leiden ) xliiindashlxxxiv and C Garton andL G Westerink (ed and trans) Germanos On Predestined Terms of Life (NewYork ) introduction



which will be the core of the philosophersrsquo defence of the claim thatthe gods are omniscient The school of Athens in particular is una-nimous as S shows in adopting this doctrine No Greek thinkerafter Iamblichus seems to favour Alexanderrsquos solution But from acertain point of view Iamblichusrsquo solution is no solution at all be-cause it defines Godrsquos knowledge in a purely negative way To statewith Proclus that lsquothe gods themselves know what is generatedwithout generation and what is extended without extension andwhat is divided without division and what is in time eternally andwhat is contingent necessarilyrsquo amounts to no more than sayingthat the gods know the sublunar but that we do not know how theyknow it The real challenge for Proclusrsquo readers such as Avicennawill be to explain what it really means to know the particulars in auniversal way ie to account in human terms for the possibility ofknowing an infinite series of items Some philosophers will deemthis project impossible and blame either the infinity of time or theparticular knowledge of God others will focus on the question ofthe infinite and explain how some degree of actual infinity is toler-able The typical structure of theSourcebookrsquos chaptersmdashfirst Alex-anderrsquos position then the Neoplatonic commentatorsrsquo elaborationof it according to their own philosophical principlesmdashallows us inturn to explain what remained until now unclear in the study ofArabic philosophy the fact that the Arabic philosophers start fromthe late commentatorsrsquo position but develop intuitions more akinto Alexanderrsquos stance To anticipate our conclusion the Neopla-tonic commentators mentioned by S are on almost every topic theauthors read by the Islamic thinkers themselves For that reason itwill be impossible to dwell with the latter without taking into ac-count what is said in the Sourcebook But the Islamic thinkers neveradopt Neoplatonic solutions in their entirety for these solutions re-flect an agenda which was not their own

Be this as it may the peaceful coexistence of these two chapters(Physics chs and ) in the Sourcebook conceals what was a crucialdilemma for the later tradition Either we opt with Alexander foran Aristotelian doctrine so that the question of divine knowledgeand power must be explained away as an illusion of theologians orwe choose a lsquoDemiurgicrsquo explanatory scheme so that this time it isnature that will run the risk of becoming secondary a mere name

In Tim i ff Diehl Cf Physics



for Godrsquos habits We would like to show that these two chaptersbecome the two horns of the most wide-ranging dilemma of thepre-modern age so that they come to reflect as well as shape theevolution of the discipline To illustrate this claim in some detailwe shall address three examples drawn from the three main do-mains covered by the Sourcebook

(a) Theory of action and causality

Chapter of Psychology examines the commentatorsrsquo lsquotheoryof actionrsquo We may note first of all that this chapter is distinctfrom that dedicated to divine power The question of determinismappears here in an exclusively ethical and physical context TheSourcebook shows that the Greek discussion takes place betweentwo main poles the compatibilism of the Stoics on the one handand on the other the efforts by Alexander to develop by elaboratingon Aristotlersquos theory of deliberation an intellectualist solution tothe problem that preserves human freedom Alexander in histreatise On Providence in particular tries to preserve on the onehand the Stoic rule that nothing happens without a cause and thatthe same cause leads to the same effect and on the other the fact thatour actions are not predetermined by the state of the world at theinstant when we accomplish them S also shows how this conflictbetween Alexander and the Stoics reappears in very similar termsbetween Proclus and Plotinus Whereas Proclus argues in favour ofthe freedom of our choices and volitions Plotinus inclines towardssome sort of compatibilism One might discuss the various waysof construing determinism that were developed by the Hellenisticphilosophers in particular by distinguishing between the ethicalthe biologicalphysical and the cosmological side of the questionNo doctrine however not even among those which stood closest

Since we interpret the creation myth of the Timaeus literally we tend to seethis opposition as one between Aristotle and Plato But other interpretationsmdashandin particular the Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato according to which the tem-poral creation of the Timaeus must not be taken at its face valuemdashare theoreticallypossible In this case there is obviously no opposition between the action of a Demi-urge and the eternity of the world To mention only Proclus he certainly held thatdivine power sustains things in existence for all eternity

See Psychology lsquoAlexander is more rationalist than the rationalist Stoicsand much more rationalist than Aristotlersquo The most recent survey of the ques-tion with a discussion of the seminal studies of S Bobzien is R W SharpleslsquoLrsquoaccident du deacuteterminisme Alexandre drsquoAphrodise dans son contexte historiquersquoEacutetudes philosophiques () ndash



to fatalism seems to have interpreted human action as producedby some transcendent principle One could at most say that everyhuman act is always determined by the general state of the worldBut this determination did not preclude the idea of a reaction ofsome sort of some decision being taken To say after all thatSocratesrsquo action is determined by the events having taken place inthe prime of his youth has never prevented our considering himif not responsible for his acts as at least their agent It would bea different and much more extreme assumption to say that it isthose past events rather than the present Socrates that are the realagent of what we normally take to be his actions

At first glance one might think that the rich debate in the Is-lamic sphere on the issue of responsibility and human action wasnothing but the historical sequel of the Greek disputes Roughlyspeaking Islamic thinkers would have radicalized the problem andtransferred its basic premisses from the physical to the theologi-cal sphere But the situation is likely to have been different Thequestion of determinism in Islam is originally part and parcel ofan ideological quest for political legitimacy The Muslims as iswell known were from their very beginning divided into numer-ous sects and dynasties out of which only one had positioned it-self at the head of the new empire In a theological context markedby the dogma of divine omnipotence this situation inevitably gaverise to new questions bearing upon the question of the sense ofworld history the relationship between God and the communityof his creatures and ultimately the individual actions of thesecreatures As to the political or dynastic aspect of the question itgoes without saying that the group leading the State showed a neattendency to favour a very strong determinism whereas some of itsopponents allowed for a relative autonomy of the political sphereand a fortiori of human actions It was this situation which cre-ated and stimulated the debate as early as the first century after theProphetrsquos death (c ndash) a period whenmore or less nothingof the Greek philosophical heritage was yet known to the Muslims

This new Muslim framework for the discussion of determinism For a very good introduction see W Montgomery Watt Islamic Philosophy and

Theology (Edinburgh ) ndash See also J van Ess Zwischen H adītˉ

und Theolo-gie Studien zum Entstehen praumldestinatianischer Uumlberlieferung (Berlin and New York) ndash

On this see D Gimaret Theacuteories de lrsquoacte humain en theacuteologie musulmane (Paris)



with its new political and theological flavour brings about certainquestionswhich had not really been tackled in theHellenistic worldand which were to play a decisive role in the subsequent history ofphilosophy S shows how some Greek Platonists constructed anintermediary position according to which necessity in the domainof human affairs is only ex hypothesi viz applies solely to the (in-evitable) consequences of the (real) choices that we make S doesnot emphasize the retrospective interest of this thesis which in-deed prefigures the intermediary position between the lsquoscience ofvisionrsquo (scientia visionis) and the lsquoscience of simple intelligencersquo (sci-entia simplicis intelligentiae) of the lsquomiddle sciencersquo (scientia media)of pre-modern and modern thinkersmdashthe sole (but crucial) differ-ence being the fact that the question is not in the ancient sourcesthat of Godrsquos knowledge but rather that of what may be knownby him as well as by us We see here very clearly the boundarybetween Greek and pre-modern speculations (that is not a valuejudgement of course but a simple fact) although the three issuesof divine omniscience fate and human responsibility are identifiedand discussed at great length Greek thinkers never seriously askthemselves to what extent we may consider everything in the worldincluding ourselves as the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in the hand ofa divine principle to what extent in particular it is God who actswhen lsquoIrsquo think I do

Does all this amount to saying that the Greek debates on the de-termination of our actions remained unknown to Muslim thinkersThat would be demonstrably false and it is at this point that theissue becomes from an epistemological point of view very inter-esting For it is the internal evolution of the Islamic debate whichwas already more than two centuries old that led the scholars ata certain time to take into account the Greek discussions Evenif the Greek discussions were often more refined and at any rateconducted from a different perspective nevertheless the Islamic

See Psychology We may be reluctant in other words to interpret the translation movement of

th-cent Baghdad as mainly dictated by an ideologial agenda of the Abbassid rulersas for example D Gutas does (see his Greek Thought Arabic Culture The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ῾Abbāssid Society (ndndashththndashth Centuries) (London and New York )) There was surely an internal de-velopment of certain questions which at a certain time independently from anypolitical consideration was such as to make it possible and fruitful to translate themasterpieces of Greek learning



perspective was at this stage sufficiently rooted in the intellectuallandscape to produce a cross-pollination of the two traditions Con-sequently we find on the side of the lsquophilhellenicrsquo philosophers (thefalāsifa) a clear tendency to emphasize in a way that reminds us ofthe great systems of the seventeenth century the theological as-pects of a lsquogeneralrsquo determinism inherited from the Neoplatonictradition they agreed in other words to interpret the hierarchyof being in the form assumed by the Athenian tradition in termsof God realizing his decree by exercising his power over every por-tion of the world We must however stress the fact that severaloptions remained open the cosmology lsquothrough whichrsquo the bestpossible world is realized is sometimes understood to be that ofAlexanderrsquos neo-Aristotelianism sometimes as more akin to PlatorsquosTimaeus interpreted literally These two pairs of criteria entail com-plex interactions which should not be reduced to a flat oppositionbetween lsquophilosophersrsquo and lsquotheologiansrsquo The basic divisions arerepresented in Table Although it is true that the two main sectsof Muslim theologians are grouped together in the left columnmdashit would be difficult indeed to be a theologian without acceptingthe idea of the world being the result of a divine act of creationaccording to a motivemdashwe note that the basic opposition betweena full and a mitigated determinism divides the philosophers alsoMoreover some philosophersmdashnamely al-Kindī and different tra-ditions stemming from himmdashagree with the theologians in recog-nizing the existence of a divine choice A special word must be saidin this context about Avicenna whose position is actually morecomplex than suggested by Table and often gives the impressionof standing midway between al-Kindī and al-Fārābī For despite

See Rashed lsquoAuthorshiprsquo ndash My way of opposing al-Fārābī and Avicenna may startle the reader But three

arguments show the difference between their respective stances (i) In the textswhere they deal with the future contingents al-Fārābī (followed by Averroes) iseager to argue against full (theological) determinism while Avicenna does his bestto confine the discussion to the neutral realm of logic (compare al-Fārābī Com-mentary on Aristotlersquos De interpretatione ndash KutschndashMarrow (Beirut) (trans in F W Zimmermann Al-Fārābīrsquos Commentary and Short Treatiseon Aristotlersquos De interpretatione (Cambridge ) ndash) with Avicenna De in-terpretatione of the Shifa ᾿ ndash al-Khudayri (Cairo )) (ii) Whereas al-Fārābī is the author of many works on political philosophy in which he argues forthe existence of the lsquovoluntary intelligiblersquo which would be self-contradictory in adeterminist context (cf H Zghal lsquoMeacutetaphysique et science politique les intelli-gibles volontaires dans le Tah s īl al-sa ῾āda drsquoal-Fārābīrsquo Arabic Sciences and Philo-sophy () ndash) Avicenna does not show the slightest interest in political


Before and after the Commentators T God and the world according to some Islamic thinkers

Divine creation has amotive the world is noteternal a parte ante (theTimaeusrsquos model)

Divine creation hasno motive the world iseternal a parte ante (theAristotelian model)

Full determinism Ash ῾ arites AvicennaMitigated determinism Mu ῾ tazilites al-Kindī Ibn

῾ AdīAl-Fārābī Averroes

the fact that he is a convinced emanationist a believer in emana-tion as the causal mechanism in the universe Avicenna sometimesexpresses his position in terms of divine decree and choice But Ithink that the rationale behind this is simply that Avicenna wants usto understand that what we may call divine lsquochoicersquo is in fact noth-ing but the emanation of the best possible world out of the FirstPrinciple and the divine intellects it is not dictated by an externallsquomotiversquo or lsquocausersquo This new distribution of the different solu-tions to the question of freedom and determinism taking place inthe Islamic world allows us to explain from a historical point ofview the evolution of the question from the age of the commenta-tors up to pre-modern and modern philosophy

(b) Theory of motion and continuous creation

Chapters ndash of volume ii (Physics) deal with the infinite and di-visibility S is of course perfectly aware of all the intricacies ofthese questions to which he has already dedicated two importantbooks That allows him to perceive in all their shades the differ-ent claims made on such issues by the commentators and aboveall their complex position with respect to their classical sources

philosophy and the concept of the lsquovoluntary intelligiblersquo is wholly absent from hiscorpus (iii) Avicenna wrote a considerable number of monographs in favour of thetotal determination of the world by God there is no trace of such a concern in al-Fārābīrsquos preserved corpus nor in the ancient lists of his writings

In the Ta ῾ līqāt Badawī (Cairo ) Avicenna writes that lsquoto speak ofchosen actions in reality makes sense only in the case of the First According tothe Mu ῾ tazilites the (divine) choice takes place by reason of some motive or causeBut to choose by reason of a motive is a constraint Hence the Creatorrsquos choice andhis action do not take place by reason of a motiversquo

For Avicennarsquos theodicy see S C Inati The Problem of Evil Ibn Sicircnacircrsquos Theo-dicy (Binghamton NY )

See Time Creation and R Sorabji Matter Space and Motion Theories in An-tiquity and their Sequels (London )



It would be impossible of course to summarize the whole debatehere It seems clear at least that there were in antiquity two majortypes of physical theory one favouring the continuum which hasan easy game in holding the perfect homogeneity of space timeand motion (between each other and each one in itself) but mustcome to grips with the problem of the infinite the other favour-ing atomism which remains on the firm ground of finitism but isobliged to view space motion and also probably time which wetend at first sight to consider as perfectly undifferentiated as di-vided by arbitrary thresholds All this is well known for the clas-sical period and rightly seen as constitutive of the debate betweenAristotle and Democritus as well as between Stoic and Epicureanphysics It would have been a likely guess that the commentatorswould all endorse Aristotlersquos theory of the continuum since theyaccepted many of the claims made in the Physics about the sensibleBut no Things are more subtle as S shows drawing our atten-tion to three un-Aristotelian claims of great interest (i) the theoryof the minima naturalia which in spite of some vague antecedentsin Aristotlersquos Physics (in his reply to Anaxagoras) is clearly moreakin to corpuscularism than Aristotle was ready to accept (ii) theadmission by Proclus of a certain geometrizing atomism inspiredby the Timaeus and last but not least (iii) Damasciusrsquo originaldoctrine of kinetic and temporal leaps taking place in the sensibleworld These three aspects clearly demonstrate how without en-tirely renouncing the Aristotelian continuum the tradition of thecommentators tried to bypass some of the difficulties raised by itsinfinitesimal structure by resorting to different kinds of corpuscu-larism

In this case as in the first (human action) it would have seemednatural to interpret the Islamic thinkersrsquo discussions as havingsimply been lsquoinfluencedrsquo by the tradition of the Greek commen-tators But we face a similar paradox Rather early in the Islamic

On this question in the Middle Ages see in particular B Pabst Atomtheoriendes lateinischen Mittelalters (Darmstadt ) ff with further bibliographyFor Averroes see R Glasner lsquoIbn Rushdrsquos theory of Minima Naturaliarsquo ArabicSciences and Philosophy () ndash

On this text see C Steel lsquoProclusrsquo Defence of the Timaeus against AristotlersquosObjections A Reconstruction of a Lost Polemical Treatisersquo in T Leinkauf and CSteel (eds) Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spaumltantike Mittelalterund RenaissancePlatorsquosTimaeus and the Foundations of Cosmology in Late Antiquitythe Middle Ages and Renaissance (Leuven ) ndash

See Sorabji Time Creation ndash



periodmdasheven if perhaps slightly later than the debate on humanactionsmdashrational theologians developed a coherent atomic systemwhose signification was paradoxically very different from that ofthe Greeks who were eventually treated as their lsquosourcesrsquo It is wellknown that for the Church Fathers Epicurusrsquo atomism constitutedthe physics of atheism Muslim theologians a few centuries latertook an opposite view corpuscularism is viewed as the physicaldoctrine which most closely espouses divine omniscience and om-nipotence For if as the Koran says lsquoGod has listed everythingin numberrsquo (cf ) and the infinite is precisely what escapesnumber there is a real danger in adopting in the sensible realm adoctrine upholding the existence of the continuum Rational theo-logians thus analysed the world as a collection of atoms which arenothing other than the lsquoinhering placesrsquo for the various accidentswhich God attributes to them God is thus responsible for thelsquonaturesrsquo of things as well as for their interactions

Thus the atomism of the theologians really is an atomism of andby theologians This fundamental difference with respect to Greekdiscussions explains here again the fact that many new questionswere raised which will arise later in European philosophy Themajor debate was probably that betweeen two theologians of thefirst half of the ninth century Abū al-Hudhayl and al-Nazzāmon the possibility of motion Abū al-Hudhayl holds a thesis verysimilar to that of Aristotlersquos adversaries in the Physics some indi-visible corpuscles of matter moved by some indivisible sequencesof motion go through indivisible segments of space At this stagetwo interpretations are possible The first one which we may labelweak does not try to elucidate the dynamic foundation of such asequential motion ie the force which allows for the effective pos-sibility of the trajectory between any two given points the otherstronger interpretation sees in God the true efficient cause of thismotion Here again we can distinguish between a weak and a stronginterpretation The former attributes to God a certain action onthe (already) given body the latter holds that God re-creates thebody at each stage of its trajectory at some different place Inboth cases the unity of motion is weaker than in Aristotle but inthe second it become a mere cinematographic illusion produced bythe juxtaposition at temporal and spatial intervals very near to one

On this topic see A Dhanani The Physical Theory of Kalam Atoms Spaceand Void in Basrian Mu ῾ tazili Cosmology (Leiden and New York )



another of numerically different bodies having indiscernible con-stitutions To both lsquoweakrsquo sequential models which have in com-mon the claim that the same body successively occupies adjacentpositions al-Nazzām objects that their determination of the lsquoverysmallrsquo size of the atoms and similarly of the atoms of motion isarbitrary In other words al-Nazzām sides with Aristotle in reject-ing any absolute limit of lsquosmallnessrsquo and with Abū al-Hudhayl inclaiming that a motion through an infinite number of positions isimpossiblemdashor what amounts to the same thing that Aristotlersquosdistinction between actuality and potentiality makes things no bet-ter on this issue Consequently only one avenue remains open to al-Nazzām his famous theory of the lsquoleapsrsquo God re-creates the bodyat different positions on its trajectory

In one of his previous studies S argued for a connection betweenDamasciusrsquo and al-Nazzāmrsquos leaps Although some similaritiesare undeniable and even striking the hypothesis of a direct de-pendence is questionable Al-Nazzāmrsquos doctrine seems better ex-plained in the context of the theologiansrsquo polemics where it has itsroots and in particular with respect to the confrontation with Abūal-Hudhaylrsquos lsquosequentialismrsquo Damascius moreover seems to haveremained unknown to the Arabic tradition And above all impor-tant differences between both theories must be taken into accountDamasciusrsquo lsquoleaprsquo stands halfway between the atomism refuted inthe Physics and the idea of a continuous creation With the formerit has in common a commitment to the existence of microscopicthresholds with the latter it attributes these thresholds to the in-fluence of some Demiurgic principle But Damascius like all hisGreek predecessors (see SE PH ndash) does not consider that themoved body is re-created at different positions on its trajectorywhich are separated from one another by a given length He justpostulates a sequentialmotion each parcel of which is both extendedand indivisible in a time which is both extended and indivisibleAs aptly remarked by S (Physics ) this last point is probablyDamasciusrsquo main original contribution And whereas Damasciusseems to see in his sequential time something like the lsquopulsationrsquoof the sensible world he does seem to question the fact that thedifferent positions of the moved body on its trajectory are adja-cent to one another His lsquotopologyrsquo in other words is identical

See Time Creation ndash See S Physics It would thus be an anticipation of an important element of doctrine in



to that of Aristotlersquos opponents and more generally to that of thevarious atomists Abū al-Hudhayl included Al-Nazzāmwent a stepfurther in the terminology of the Physics the two positions of themoved body are no longer adjacent but only successive ie suchthat no third lsquocreationrsquo of the body occurs between them

It is plain thus that al-Nazzāmrsquos claims cannot be understood ifabstracted from the theological considerations about divine omni-science and omnipotence of which they are part and parcel Theydo not lsquorespondrsquo to Greek ideas on the continuum for it is ratherthat the commentators on Aristotlersquos Physics were translated intoArabic at about the time of Abū al-Hudhayl and al-Nazzām inorder to clarify the various issues pertaining to the problem of thecontinuum The chief role assigned to Greek physicsmdashby Aristotlehimself of course and by Alexander and Philoponusmdashwas to fur-nish the main tenets of a coherent theory of the continuum (spacetime and motion) The question was broadly recognized as crucialfor it appeared very soon that a clear grasp of its main tenets was aprerequisite for any discussion of divine efficiency andor creationAgainst al-Kindī for example who in numerous writings defendedthe notion of an instantaneous creation al-Fārābī seems to have re-lied on Aristotlersquos proofs in Physics to show that such a notion wasself-contradictory Typically what we see here is a new readingof the Greek sources oriented by Islamic theological discussionsAnd here again the debate between philosophy (falsafa) and theo-logy (kalām) was paralleled and enriched by the old confrontationbetween Aristotlersquos physicalism and the Timaeusrsquos demiurgy

(c) Different kinds of universals and the indifference of the essence

In chapter of Logic and Metaphysics S suggests a division ofthe different types of universals which goes into much furtherdetail than anything previously written on these topics S ( ff)identifies the simultaneous presence in the commentators of seven

Descartes at least according to some authorized interpreters See J Wahl Du rocirclede lrsquoinstant dans la philosophie de Descartes (Paris ) followed on this issue byM Gueroult Descartes selon lrsquoordre des raisons vols (Paris ) esp i ndash

See M Rashed lsquoNouveaux fragments anti-procliens de Philopon en versionarabe et le problegraveme des origines de la theacuteorie de lrsquoinstaurationrsquo forthcoming in GFederici Vescovini and A Hasnawi (eds) Circolazione dei saperi nel Mediterraneo(secoli IXndashXVI) th International Conference of the SIHSPAI (Florence February) (Florence )



different conceptions of the universal () Platonic Forms prior tothings () Forms as creative logoi in the mind of God () Aris-totelian universals in things () Aristotelian concepts posterior tothings () Platonic recollected concepts () Aristotelian abstrac-ted concepts in mathematics vs Platonic concepts () geometricaluniversals extended and pluralized in the imagination We are hereobviously confronted with the difficulty of identifying a single andcoherent doctrine of the lsquocommentatorsrsquo Whereas Alexandermaintained only () but given his ambiguous terminology couldalso be taken to hold () and sometimes () the Neoplatonistsof late antiquity tend to be more generous and conciliatory inadmitting several types of Forms and different types of universalsEven in this case however we could ask ourselves whether there isa single theory of the commentators or rather several discussionsmore or less disconnected from one another behind their apparentunity Without going into too much detail here we can remarkthat Alexanderrsquos thesis is obviously aimed at refuting Platorsquos sup-posed hypostasization of the universals For Alexander the onlylsquoplacersquo for the form is the biological individual not the individualas such but the individual in so far as it belongs to an eternalspecies This point is crucial if we want to understand in whatsense Alexander affirms the indifference of the form with respectto its universality it is a definitional indifferencemdashnothing in thedefinition of the form expresses its universalitymdashnot an existentialone for on the contrary the individual form would not exist if itwere not a link in an infinite biological chain Alexanderrsquos theoryof the form thus presupposes a logic (theory of definition and thedifferentia) a physics (theory of the inherence of the form in itssubstrate) and a cosmology (theory of the eternity of the world)which remain despite unequivocal signs of neo-Aristotelian essen-tialism basically true to Aristotlersquos ontology

As soon as the immanent form is interpreted as something inter-

See above pp ndash See R W Sharples lsquoSpecies Form and Inheritance Aristotle and Afterrsquo [lsquoSpe-

cies Formrsquo] in A Gotthelf (ed) Aristotle on Nature and Living Things Philosophi-cal and Historical Studies Presented to David M Balme on his Seventieth Birthday(Pittsburgh ) ndash

On this famous doctrine see in particular M M Tweedale lsquoAlexander of Aph-rodisiasrsquo Views on Universalsrsquo Phronesis () ndash

Alexanderrsquos Aristotle is not Balmersquos Aristotle See on this Sharples lsquoSpeciesFormrsquo and Rashed Essentialisme



mediate between the mental concept and the Platonic Form Alex-anderrsquos hopes of developing an Aristotelian ontology sufficient toaccount for everything there is are evidently dashed But the Neo-platonists it goes without saying are not very sympathetic towardsAlexanderrsquos subtleties And there is no doubt that the doctrine ofthe three states of the universal aims primarily at subordinatingAlexanderrsquos immanent form to the Platonic Form

Before Arabic scholarly circles had any knowledge of the Greekcommentators rational theologians had already developed an in-tense lsquometaphysicalrsquo reflexion pertaining to the ontologial status ofthe possibles which are not realized in the world Do we haveto deny them any form of existence ie to consider them as purelsquonothingsrsquo exactly in the same way as all those things entailing alogical or notional impossibility This question quickly gave riseto an ontology of the lsquothingrsquo a lsquothingologyrsquo which was in manyaspects more extensive than the lsquoousiologyrsquo which constituted thecore of Aristotlersquos metaphysics Whereas Alexander considers thatthe sole possible world is the world we inhabitmdashbecause it is theonly viable world in hylomorphic termsmdashIslamic theologians tendto consider the actual world as fundamentally identical to all pos-sible worlds fromwhich it is distinguishable only by a superior per-fection and of course the unique property of having been plungedinto actual existence by God (It has no bearing on the questionwhether we consider the distinction essenceexistence at the level ofthe individual substance or of the world individuals are not to bedissociated from one another as soon as we begin to think in termsof possible worlds)

It is only in the context of these discussions that the texts of theNeoplatonists on the three stages of the universal and the formwere diffused in Arabic It is not very surprising then to discoverthat the Platonic Form was reinterpreted as the pure lsquoessencersquoof the theologians whereas the form in re and the form post rembecame two different types of its worldly realization This shiftwas made even easier by the convergence already proposed bycertain Greek authors of the universal ante rem and the lsquoForms as

See on this question R M Frank lsquoAl-Ma ῾ dum wal-Mawjud the Non-Existent the Existent and the Possible in the Teaching of Abu Hashim and hisFollowersrsquo Meacutelanges de lrsquoInstitut Dominicain des Eacutetudes Orientales () ndash and id lsquoThe Non-Existent and the Possible in Classical Ash ῾ arite Teachingrsquoibid () ndash

See R Wisnovsky Avicennarsquos Metaphysics in Context (London ) ndash



creative logoi in the mind of Godrsquo (Logic and Metaphysics ff)Such was perhaps already the doctrine in al-Kindīrsquos circle andthat was surely the thesis put forward by the Christian theolo-gian Yahyā ibn ῾ Adī Their positions often stand midway betweenAlexandrian commentarism and Islamic rational theology InIbn ῾ Adīrsquos discussions the three stages of the univeral becomeindicative of three subclasses of existents the conjunction of whichforms the general domain of existence The first class of existents(labelled lsquodivine existentsrsquo) contains what pure definitions definethe physical domain contains what these definitions define whenwe add some material circumstance to them and the psychologicaldomain contains what these definitions define when we add thespecification of their mental status We are here very far from theessentials of Alexanderrsquos ontology

Avicenna in a remarkable way takes the opposite approach TheAlexandrian tradition and Ibn ῾ Adī after it was unanimously try-ing to make Alexanderrsquos ontology compatible with Platonic FormsAvicenna inherits the doctrine of the three stages of the universalas part of the Greek scholastic legacy but tries to make it conso-nant with a certain Aristotelianism Hence Avicenna agrees withIbn ῾ Adī in considering that lsquophysical existencersquo and lsquomental ex-istencersquo are two subclasses of existence He rejects however thelatterrsquos claim that there is a third domain lsquodivinersquo constituted bythe objects signified by pure definitions According to Avicennapure definition does not signify that we add no existential determi-nation but only that we do not specify what sort of existential de-termination we add The relationship between pure definition andspecified definition is thus similar to that between the algebraic en-tity and its possible realizations Just as the lsquothingrsquo of the Arabicalgebraistsmdashtheir name for our unknown xmdashcan indiscriminatelybe a magnitude or a number so can the unspecified existent indis-criminately be a physical or a mental existent It is therefore in avery special (and modal) sense that lsquopurersquo existence can be taken asan ontological category independent of its two possible realizations

See P Adamson The Arabic Plotinus A Philosophical Study of the Theologyof Aristotle (London )

See M Rashed lsquoAvicenne et Ibn ῾ Adi sur les types drsquoexistantsrsquo in CDrsquoAncona V Celluprica and R Chiaradonna (eds) Aristotele e i suoi esegeti neo-platonici logica e ontologia nelle interpretazioni greche e arabe (Naples ) ndash

See R Rashed lsquoMatheacutematiques et philosophie chez Avicennersquo in J Jolivet andR Rashed (eds) Eacutetudes sur Avicenne (Paris ) ndash



In conclusion it seems that we can reconstitute in the metaphy-sics of the Arabic philosophers (as opposed to the rational theo-logians) a twofold evolution Theologians in the context of theirdiscussions on possible worlds were already accustomed to hand-ling a distinction that amounted to that between lsquoessencersquo and lsquoex-istencersquo A discussion internal to Greek commentarism betweenAlexanderrsquos Aristotelian orthodoxy and the Alexandrian Platonistshas the effect of making every careful reader alive to the questionof the status of the predicates of the essence such as universalityInteraction between both domains produced a doctrine in whichexistence itself was interpreted as a predicate and in which discus-sion was focused on the question of the exact relationship betweenessence and existence Even in Avicenna who is very reluctant todraw a sharp distinction between essence and existence the worldis conceived of as the realization produced by the First Principleof a certain essence

These three examples taken from the three volumes of the Source-book show at least two things First that it is necessary now foreveryone wishing to understand one of the starting-points of Arabicphilosophymdashand byway of consequence one of the starting-pointsof modern philosophymdashto be aware of the wealth of new facts andinterpretations gathered in Srsquos Sourcebook Secondly that it wouldbe a dangerous mistake to think that the Sourcebook contains ready-made solutions for the doctrinal problems we meet in the Islamicsphere In other words we should reject the idea that the relation-ship of late antique philosophy to Arabic philosophy consisted ofthree phases following one another translation of Greek learningthen assimilation then creation On crucial points such as humanaction the continuum or the distinction between the form and itspredicates we have seen that the Greek discussions were in fact be-ing reused in new contexts contexts in which rational theology andprobably algebra played a major role Arabic philosophy is thuscharacterized on the one hand by an extension of Alexanderrsquos onto-logy in the direction of a more abstract and formal lsquothingologyrsquo andon the other by a neat tendency to interpret every eventmdashbe it a hu-man action a physical change or the determination of a naturemdashinan occasionalist way More generally and if one is as S surely issceptical about these kinds of lsquo-istrsquo labels we witness the intrusionin the philosophical area of two new objects the thing and an omni-



potent and omniscient God which could not but deeply transformthe philosophy of the commentators as its influence moved forwardin the history of Western thought

Universitagrave degli Studi Roma TreEacutecole Normale Supeacuterieure Paris

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamson P The Arabic Plotinus A Philosophical Study of the Theologyof Aristotle (London )

Baltussen H and Stone M (eds) Philosophy Science and Exegesisin Greek Arabic and Latin Commentaries vol i [Philosophy Science andExegesis i] (London )

Barnes J lsquoldquoThere was an old person from Tyrerdquo Critical Notice ofGeorge Karamanolis and Anne Sheppard (eds) Studies on PorphyryBulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement Londonrsquo Rhizai () ndash

Bastianini G and Sedley D (ed and comm) Commentarium in Pla-tonis Theaetetum in Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini iii (Florence) ndash

Blumenthal H Aristotle and Neoplatonism in Late Antiquity Interpreta-tions of De anima [Aristotle and Neoplatonism] (Ithaca NY )

Bonazzi M lsquoEudorus of Alexandria and Early Imperial Platonismrsquo inSharples and Sorabji (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophy ndash

Charlton W (trans and comm) lsquoPhiloponusrsquo On Aristotle On the Soul ndash (London )

Chiaradonna R lsquoHyleacutemorphisme et causaliteacute des intelligibles Plotin etAlexandre drsquoAphrodisersquo Eacutetudes philosophiques () ndash

lsquoPlatonismo e teoria della conoscenza stoica tra II e III secolo d Crsquoin M Bonazzi and C Helmig (eds) Platonic StoicismmdashStoic Plato-nism The Dialogue between Platonism and Stoicism in Antiquity (Leuven) ndash

Plotino (Rome )review of Karamanolis Agreement in Archiv fuumlr Geschichte der Philo-

sophie () ndashSostanza movimento analogia Plotino critico di Aristotele (Naples

)lsquoWhat is Porphyryrsquos Isagogersquo Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filo-

sofica medievale () ndashCorrigan K Plotinusrsquo Theory of Matter-Evil and the Question of Sub-

stance Plato Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias (Leuven )



DrsquoAncona C (ed) The Libraries of the Neoplatonists (Leiden )Dhanani A The Physical Theory of Kalam Atoms Space and Void in

Basrian Mu ῾ tazili Cosmology (Leiden and New York )Emilsson E K Plotinus on Intellect (Oxford )Festugiegravere A J LrsquoIdeacuteal religieux des grecs et lrsquoEacutevangile (Paris )Frank RM lsquoAl-Ma ῾ wal-Mawjud theNon-Existent the Existent and the

Possible in the Teaching of Abu Hashim and his Followersrsquo Meacutelangesde lrsquoInstitut Dominicain des Eacutetudes Orientales () ndash

lsquoThe Non-Existent and the Possible in Classical Ash ῾ arite TeachingrsquoMeacutelanges de lrsquoInstitut Dominicain des Eacutetudes Orientales () ndash

Frede M lsquoEpiloguersquo in K A Algra J Barnes J Mansfeld and MSchofield (eds) The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy (Cam-bridge ) ndash

Garton C andWesterink LG (ed and trans)Germanos OnPredestinedTerms of Life (New York )

Gimaret D Theacuteories de lrsquoacte humain en theacuteologie musulmane (Paris )Glasner R lsquoIbn Rushdrsquos Theory of Minima Naturaliarsquo Arabic Sciences

and Philosophy () ndashGoldin O (trans and comm) Philoponus () On Aristotle Posterior

Analytics (London )Gottschalk H B lsquoAristotelian Philosophy in the Roman World from the

Time of Cicero to the End of the Second Century rsquo in Aufstieg undNiedergang der roumlmischen Welt II (Berlin and New York )ndash (partly reprinted under the title lsquoThe Earliest AristotelianCommentatorsrsquo in Sorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformed ndash)

Griffin M lsquoThe Reception of Aristotlersquos Categories c to rsquo(diss Oxford )

Gueroult M Descartes selon lrsquoordre des raisons vols (Paris )Gutas D Greek Thought Arabic Culture The Graeco-Arabic Translation

Movement in Baghdad and Early ῾Abbāssid Society (ndndashththndashthCenturies) (London and New York )

Hadot I lsquoSimplicius In Cat p ndash Kalbfleisch An ImportantContribution to the History of the Ancient Commentaryrsquo RheinischesMuseum () ndash

lsquoSimplicius or PriscianusOn theAuthor of theCommentary onAris-totlersquos De anima (CAG IX) A Methodological Studyrsquo Mnemosyne () ndash

et al (trans and comm) Simplicius Commentaire sur les Cateacutegoriesvol i (Leiden )

Hadot P lsquoTheacuteologie exeacutegegravese reacuteveacutelation eacutecriture dans la philosophiegrecquersquo in M Tardieu (ed) Les Regravegles de lrsquointerpreacutetation (Paris )ndash (repr in Eacutetudes de philosophie ancienne (Paris ) ndash)



Hoffmann P lsquoLa fonction des prologues exeacutegeacutetiques dans la penseacutee peacuteda-gogique neacuteoplatoniciennersquo in B Roussel and J-D Dubois (eds) Entreren matiegravere (Paris ) ndash

Inati S C The Problem of Evil Ibn Sicircnacircrsquos Theodicy (Binghamton NY)

Karamanolis G Plato and Aristotle in Agreement Platonists on Aristotlefrom Antiochus to Porphyry [Agreement] (Oxford )

lsquoPorphyry The First Platonist Commentator on Aristotlersquo in Adam-son Baltussen and Stone (eds) Philosophy Science and Exegesis indash

Lackner W (ed trans comm) Nikephoros Blemmydes Gegen dieVorherbestimmung der Todesstunde (Athens and Leiden )

Lameer J Al-Fārābī and Aristotelian Syllogistics Greek Theory and Is-lamic Practice (Leiden and New York ) ndash

Linguiti A lsquoLa felicitagrave dellrsquoanima non discesarsquo in A Brancacci (ed) An-tichi e moderni nella filosofia di etagrave imperiale (Naples ) ndash

Lloyd A C lsquoNon-Propositional Thought in Plotinusrsquo Phronesis () ndash

Long A A and Sedley D N The Hellenistic Philosophers vols (Cam-bridge )

Luna C Trois eacutetudes sur la tradition des commentaires anciens agrave laMeacutetaphysique drsquoAristote (Leiden )

Mansfeld J Heresiography in Context Hippolytusrsquo Elenchos as a Sourcefor Greek Philosophy (Leiden )

Prolegomena Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author ora Text (Leiden )

Merlan P Monopsychism Mysticism Metaconsciousness Problems of theSoul in the Neo-Aristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition nd edn (TheHague )

Mignucci M lsquoLogic and Omniscience Alexander of Aphrodisias andProclusrsquo Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy () ndash

Montgomery Watt W Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh)

Moraux P Alexandre drsquoAphrodise exeacutegegravete de la noeacutetique drsquoAristote (Liegravegeand Paris )

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander vonAphrodisias vol i [Aristotelismus i] (Berlin and New York )

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander vonAphrodisias vol ii [Aristotelismus ii] (Berlin and New York )

Pabst B Atomtheorien des lateinischen Mittelalters (Darmstadt )Perkams M Selbstbewusstsein in der Spaumltantike Die neuplatonische Kom-

mentare zu Aristoteles De anima (Berlin and New York )



Praechter K review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca in By-zantinische Zeitschrift () ndash (repr inKleine Schriften ed HDoumlrrie [Kleine Schriften] (Hildesheim and New York ) ndashEnglish translation by V Caston in Sorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformedndash)

lsquoRichtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismusrsquo in Carl Robert zum Maumlrz Genethliakon Uumlberreicht von der Graeca Halensis (Berlin) ndash (repr in Kleine Schriften ndash)

Rashed M Alexandre drsquoAphrodise Commentaire perdu agrave la PhysiquedrsquoAristote Les scholies byzantines (Berlin and New York forthcoming)

lsquoAvicenne et Ibn ῾ Adi sur les types drsquoexistantsrsquo in C DrsquoAncona VCelluprica and R Chiaradonna (eds) Aristotele e i suoi esegeti neopla-tonici logica e ontologia nelle interpretazioni greche e arabe (Naples )ndash

Essentialisme Alexandre drsquoAphrodise entre logique physique et cosmo-logie [Essentialisme] (Berlin and New York )

lsquoNouveaux fragments anti-procliens de Philopon en version arabe etle problegraveme des origines de la theacuteorie de lrsquoinstaurationrsquo in G Fede-rici Vescovini and A Hasnawi (eds) Circolazione dei saperi nel Medi-terraneo (secoli IXndashXVI) th International Conference of the SIHSPAI(Florence February ) (Florence ) (forthcoming)

lsquoOn the Authorship of the Treatise On the Harmonization of the Opi-nions of the Two Sages Attributed to al-Fārābīrsquo [lsquoAuthorshiprsquo] ArabicSciences and Philosophy () ndash

lsquoPrioriteacute de lrsquoεἶδος ou du γένος entre Andronicos et Alexandre vestigesarabes et grecs ineacuteditsrsquo Arabic Sciences and Philosophy () ndash

Rashed R lsquoMatheacutematiques et philosophie chez Avicennersquo in J Jolivetand R Rashed (eds) Eacutetudes sur Avicenne (Paris ) ndash

Les Matheacutematiques infiniteacutesimales du IXe au XIe siegravecle vols (Lon-don ndash)

Reinhardt T lsquoAndronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon on AristotlersquosCategoriesrsquo in Sharples and Sorabji (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophyndash

Remes P Plotinus on Self The Philosophy of the lsquoWersquo (Cambridge )Rescigno AAlessandro di Afrodisia Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele

Frammenti del primo libro (Amsterdam )Sellars J lsquoThe Aristotelian Commentators A Bibliographical Guidersquo in

Adamson Baltussen and Stone (eds) Philosophy Science and Exegesisi ndash

Sharples R W lsquoLrsquoaccident du deacuteterminisme Alexandre drsquoAphrodisedans son contexte historiquersquo Eacutetudes philosophiques () ndash

(ed and comm) Alexander Aphrodisiensis De anima libri mantissa(Berlin and New York )



lsquoAlexander of Aphrodisias Scholasticism and Innovationrsquo in Aufstiegund Niedergang der roumlmischen Welt II (Berlin and New York )ndash

lsquoldquoHabent sua fata libellirdquo Aristotlersquos Categories in the First Cen-tury rsquo Acta Antiqua Hungarica () ndash

lsquoThe School of Alexanderrsquo in Sorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformedndash

lsquoSpecies Form and Inheritance Aristotle and Afterrsquo [lsquoSpeciesFormrsquo] in A Gotthelf (ed) Aristotle on Nature and Living ThingsPhilosophical and Historical Studies Presented to David M Balme on hisSeventieth Birthday (Pittsburgh ) ndash

and Sorabji R (eds) Greek and Roman Philosophy ndash [Greek and Roman Philosophy] vols (London )

Sorabji R lsquoAristotle on the Role of Intellect in Virtuersquo Proceedings of theAristotelian Society (ndash) ndash

(ed) Aristotle Transformed The Ancient Commentators and their In-fluence [Aristotle Transformed] (London )

Matter Space and Motion Theories in Antiquity and their Sequels(London )

Necessity Cause and Blame Perspectives on Aristotlersquos Theory (Lon-don and Ithaca NY )

Time Creation and the Continuum [Time Creation] (London andIthaca NY )

Steel C (trans and comm) Priscian On Theophrastusrsquo On Sense-Perception (trans P Huby) with lsquoSimpliciusrsquo On Aristotlersquos On the Soul ndash (trans C Steel) in collaboration with J O Urmson notesby P Lautner (London )

lsquoProclusrsquo Defence of theTimaeus against Aristotlersquos Objections ARe-construction of a Lost Polemical Treatisersquo in T Leinkauf and C Steel(eds) Platons Timaios als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spaumltantike Mit-telalter und RenaissancePlatorsquos Timaeus and the Foundations of Cosmo-logy in Late Antiquity the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Leuven )ndash

Il Seacute che cambia lrsquoanima nel tardo Neoplatonismo Giamblico Dama-scio e Prisciano ed L I Martone (Bari ) (Italian updated edition ofC Steel The Changing Self A Study on the Soul in Later NeoplatonismIamblichus Damascius and Priscianus (Brussels ))

Szlezaacutek T A Platon und Aristoteles in der Nuslehre Plotins (Basle andStuttgart )

Tornau C lsquoBemerkungen zu Stephanos von Alexandria Plotin und Plut-arch von Athenrsquo [lsquoBemerkungenrsquo] Elenchos () ndash

lsquoQursquoest-ce qursquoun individu Uniteacute individualiteacute et conscience de



soi dans la meacutetaphysique plotinienne de lrsquoacircmersquo Eacutetudes philosophiques() ndash

Tweedale M M lsquoAlexander of Aphrodisiasrsquo Views on UniversalsrsquoPhronesis () ndash

Usener H review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca in Goumlt-tingische Gelehrte Anzeigen () ndash

van Ess J Theologie und Gesellschaft im und Jahrhundert HidschraEine Geschichte des religioumlsen Denkens im fruumlhen Islam vols (Berlin andNew York ndash)

Zwischen H adītˉ

und Theologie Studien zum Entstehen praumldestinatia-nischer Uumlberlieferung (Berlin and New York )

Verrycken K lsquoThe Metaphysics of Ammonius Son of Hermeiasrsquo in So-rabji (ed) Aristotle Transformed ndash

Wahl J Du rocircle de lrsquoinstant dans la philosophie de Descartes (Paris )Westerink LG lsquoThe Alexandrian Commentatorsrsquo in Sorabji (ed)Aris-

totle Transformed ndashWisnovsky R Avicennarsquos Metaphysics in Context (London )Zghal H lsquoMeacutetaphysique et science politique les intelligibles volontaires

dans le Tah s īl al-sa ῾āda drsquoal-Fārābīrsquo Arabic Sciences and Philosophy () ndash

Zimmermann F W Al-Fārābīrsquos Commentary and Short Treatise on Aris-totlersquos De interpretatione (Cambridge )


OXFORD STUDIESIN ANCIENTPHILOSOPHY

EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3

Created on 18 February 2010 at 1427 hours page iii

HistoryItem_V1 TrimAndShift Range all pages Trim fix size 5500 x 8500 inches 1397 x 2159 mm Shift none Normalise (advanced option) original 32 D20151022103357 6120000 Half letter Blank 3960000 Tall 1 0 No 1323 554 None Right 120000 00000 Both 17 AllDoc 33 CurrentAVDoc Uniform 390000 Top QITE_QuiteImposing3 Quite Imposing 30k Quite Imposing 3 1 0 48 47 48 1 HistoryItem_V1 TrimAndShift Range all pages Trim cut bottom edge by 2700 points Shift none Normalise (advanced option) original 32 D20151022103357 6120000 Half letter Blank 3960000 Tall 1 0 No 1323 554 None Right 120000 00000 Both 17 AllDoc 33 CurrentAVDoc Smaller 270000 Bottom QITE_QuiteImposing3 Quite Imposing 30k Quite Imposing 3 1 5 48 47 48 1 HistoryItem_V1 TrimAndShift Range all pages Trim cut bottom edge by 300 points Shift none Normalise (advanced option) original 32 D20151022103357 6120000 Half letter Blank 3960000 Tall 1 0 No 1323 554 None Right 120000 00000 Both 17 AllDoc 33 CurrentAVDoc Smaller 30000 Bottom QITE_QuiteImposing3 Quite Imposing 30k Quite Imposing 3 1 5 48 47 48 1 HistoryItem_V1 Nup Create a new document Trim unused space from sheets no Allow pages to be scaled yes Margins and crop marks none Sheet size 8500 x 11000 inches 2159 x 2794 mm Sheet orientation tall Layout scale to rows 1 down columns 1 across Align centre 00000 100000 200000 0 Corners 03000 Fixed 0 0 1 1 10000 0 0 1 00000 1 D20151022103511 7920000 US Letter Blank 6120000 Tall 1019 331 00000 C 0 CurrentAVDoc 00000 0 2 0 1 0 QITE_QuiteImposing3 Quite Imposing 30k Quite Imposing 3 1 1 HistoryItem_V1 TrimAndShift Range all pages Trim none Shift move right by 1200 points Normalise (advanced option) original 32 D20151022103357 6120000 Half letter Blank 3960000 Tall 1 0 No 1323 554 Fixed Right 120000 00000 Both 17 AllDoc 33 CurrentAVDoc None 30000 Bottom QITE_QuiteImposing3 Quite Imposing 30k Quite Imposing 3 1 7 48 47 48 1 HistoryList_V1 qi2base


hind Richard Sorabjirsquos (henceforth S) Sourcebook ie that there isa lsquophilosophy of the commentatorsrsquo which transforms Aristotle anddeserves to be studied in itself (not as ancillary to something else)is rather recent Philosophy from to was obviously notignored before the current flourishing of research on the commenta-torsNeoplatonism and late antique thought have traditionally beenthe focus of considerable interest among classical scholars Yet theNeoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle were often left aside andtheir overall impact on twentieth-century scholarship on late an-tique philosophy was until recent times modest Notoriously thesituation has changed radically during the last three decades mostlythanks to Srsquos projects The huge corpus of the Commentaria inAristotelem Graeca is now intensively studied and the philosophyof the commentators is widely recognized as a crucial aspect of an-cient thought The Sourcebook can be seen as the crowning of thisrenaissance of interest

As the title makes clear Srsquos Sourcebook focuses on the lsquophi-losophy of the commentatorsrsquo from to As such thiswork may be expected to be a guide to the main philosophical is-sues raised and concepts used in the Commentaria in AristotelemGraeca Things however are somewhat different many texts in-cluded in the Sourcebook do not come from the Commentaria andthe three volumes offer something different from a mere panoramaof the extant ancient commentaries on Aristotle The inclusion ofa number of Aristotelian passages is a straightforward choice since

(Hildesheim and New York ) ndash English translation by V Caston in RSorabji (ed) Aristotle Transformed The Ancient Commentators and their Influence[Aristotle Transformed] (London ) ndash)

It may be interesting to focus on the causes of this fact but the issue would de-mand a long discussion which it is not possible to undertake here Some main rea-sons however may provisionally be singled out the first has just been mentionednamely that the study of the ancient commentaries was conceived of as pertainingto the interpretation of Aristotle rather than to the study of late antique thoughtFurthermore a certain idea of lsquoPlatonismrsquo (and lsquoNeoplatonismrsquo) as a homogeneousphenomenon (in antiquity and beyond) may have played a significant role in thelack of interest in the commentaries on Aristotle Finally late antique philosophyhas traditionally been seen as mostly (if not exclusively) theological accordingly itwas easy to regard the commentaries on Aristotle as out of the main scope of lsquoNeo-platonismrsquo (the metaphysical and theological interpretation of Plato)

Details in J Sellars lsquoThe Aristotelian Commentators A BibliographicalGuidersquo in P Adamson H Baltussen and M Stone (eds) Philosophy Science andExegesis in Greek Arabic and Latin Commentaries vol i [Philosophy Science andExegesis i] (London ) ndash











































(b) Plotinus





















































(c) to















































































































































































BIBLIOGRAPHY


































































































Zwischen H adītˉ









EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3












































(b) Plotinus





















































(c) to















































































































































































BIBLIOGRAPHY


































































































Zwischen H adītˉ









EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3



















































(c) to















































































































































































BIBLIOGRAPHY


































































































Zwischen H adītˉ









EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3











































































































































































BIBLIOGRAPHY


































































































Zwischen H adītˉ









EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3





















































































Zwischen H adītˉ









EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3




EDITOR BRAD INWOOD

VOLUME XXXVIII

3



before and after the commentators: an ...ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/.../osap/38-chiaradonnarashed.pdfmost...

Documents