The ancient commentators on Plato and Aristotle

Th e Ancient Commentators

on Plato and Aristotle

Ancient Philosophies

Th is series provides fresh and engaging new introductions to the

major schools of philosophy of antiquity. Designed for students of

philosophy and classics, the books offer clear and rigorous presenta￾tion of core ideas and lay the foundation for a thorough understand￾ing of their subjects. Primary texts are handled in translation and the

readers are provided with useful glossaries, chronologies and guides

to the primary source material.

Published

Th e Ancient Commentators on

Plato and Aristotle

Miira Tuominen

Ancient Scepticism

Harald Th orsrud

Cynics

William Desmond

Neoplatonism

Pauliina Remes

Presocratics

James Warren

Stoicism

John Sellars

Forthcoming

Aristotle

Vasilis Politis

Classical Islamic Philosophy

Deborah Black

Confucianism

Paul Goldin

Epicureanism

Tim O’Keefe

Indian Buddhist Philosophy

Amber Carpenter

Plato

Andrew Mason

Socrates

Mark McPherran

Th e Ancient Commentators

on Plato and Aristotle

Miira Tuominen

© Miira Tuominen, 2009

Th is book is copyright under the Berne Convention.

No reproduction without permission.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library.

Typeset in Minion.

First Published 2009 by Acumen

Published 2014 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group,

an informa business

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now

known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in

any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing

from the publishers.

Notices

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and

knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds,

or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they

should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including

parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors,

contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to

persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise,

or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas

contained in the material herein.

isbn: 978-1-84465-162-7 (hardcover)

isbn: 978-1-84465-163-4 (paperback)

v

Contents

Acknowledgements vi

Abbreviations vii

Chronology ix

1. Introduction 1

2. Epistemology 41

3. Science and logic 70

4. Physics 118

5. Psychology: perception and intellect 158

6. Metaphysics 200

7. Ethics 237

8. Conclusion 280

Notes 288

Further reading 301

Bibliography 306

Index 320

vi

Acknowledgements

Th is volume was mainly written during the time in which I had the privilege of concen￾trating on a book like this at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Towards the

end of this project I had already started my job at the University of Jyväskylä. I would

like to thank my colleagues and superiors at both places.

When it comes to the content of the book, I would first like to express my gratitude to

the anonymous readers from whom I received constructive and insightful suggestions.

I am also deeply grateful to Monte Johnson, who agreed to read the whole manuscript.

All these comments greatly benefited the resulting book. Individual chapters were read

by Eyjólfur Emilsson, Sara Heinämaa, Simo Knuuttila and Pauliina Remes, and I would

like to thank them all warmly. I would also like to express my gratitude to Richard Sorabji

for encouraging my work on the commentators.

At Acumen, Steven Gerrard and Kate Williams have been most helpful and wonder￾fully patient to work with. I would also like to thank my language editor Robert Whiting,

whose comments I enjoyed very much. Some changes have been made aft er he com￾mented on the manuscript. All shortcomings in content and style are mine only.

On a more personal note, thank you Teemu for our discussions and simply for being

there for me. Finally, I had just started writing this book when my father passed away.

Hence it is perhaps one example of the consolation of philosophy.

vii

Abbreviations

Agathias

Hist. = Th e Histories

Alexander of Aphrodisias (Alex.Aphr.)

de An. = De anima (in CAG Suppl. II 1)

Fat. = De fato (in CAG Suppl. II.1)

in APr. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (in CAG II 1)

in Metaph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (in CAG I)

in Mete. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (in CAG III 2)

Quaest. = Quaestiones (in CAG Suppl. II 2)

in Sens. = Commentary on Aristotle’s De sensu (in CAG III 1)

in Top. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Topics (in CAG II 2)

Ammonius (Ammon.)

in APr. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (in CAG IV 6)

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG IV 4)

in Isag. = Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge (in CAG IV 3)

Anonymous

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG XXIII 2)

Aristotle (Arist.)

de An. = De anima

APo. = Analytica Posteriora (Posterior Analytics)

APr. = Analytica Priora (Prior Analytics)

Cael. = De caelo

Cat. = Categoriae (Categories)

EN = Ethica Nicomachea (Nicomachean Ethics)

the ancient comment at ors on pl at o and ar ist otle

viii

Metaph. = Metaphysica (Metaphysics)

Mete. = Meteorologica (Meteorology)

PA = De partibus animalium (Parts of Animals)

Ph. = Physica (Physics)

Pol. = Politica (Politics)

SE = Sophistici elenchi (Sophistical Refutations)

Sens. = De sensu

Top. = Topica (Topics)

Arrian (Arr.)

Epict. = Epicteti Dissertationes

Asclepius (Ascl.)

in Metaph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (in CAG VI 2)

Aspasius (Asp.)

in EN = Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (in CAG XIX 1)

Boethius

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories

in Isag. = Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge

CAG = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca

Cicero (Cic.)

Fin. = De finibus

CLCAG = Corpus Latinorum commentarium in Aristotelem Graecorum

Dexippus

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG IV 2)

Diogenes Laertius (D.L.)

Elias/David

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG XVIII 1)

in Isag. = Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge (in CAG XVIII 1)

Erastius et al.

in EN = Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (in CAG XX)

Galen

Consuet. = Peri ethōn, Scripta minora, ed. Müller 1891

Libanius (Lib.)

Ep. = Epistulae

abbr ev iations

ix

Marinus (Marin.)

Procl. = Vita Procli

Olympiodorus (Olymp.)

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG XII 1)

in Grg. = Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias

in Mete. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (in CAG XII 2)

Philodemus (Phld.)

Acad.Hist. = History of the Academy

Philoponus (Phlp.)

in de An. = Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (in CAG XV)

in APo. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (in CAG XIII 3)

in APr. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (in CAG XIII 2)

in Ph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (in CAG XVI, XVII)

Plato (Pl.)

Th t. = Th eaetetus

Ti. = Timaeus

Plotinus (Plot.)

Enn. = Enneads

Plutarch (Plu.)

Sull. = Sulla

Comm. not. = De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos

Porphyry (Porph.)

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG IV 1)

in Harm. = Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics, ed. Düring 1932

Isag. = Isagoge (in CAG IV 1)

Plot. = Life of Plotinus

Proclus (Procl.)

in Metaph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics

in Parm. = Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, ed. Cousin 1864

in Ti. = Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus

Pseudo-Philoponus (ps.-Phlp.)

in de An. = Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (in CAG XV)

Pseudo-Simplicius (ps.-Simp.)

in de An. = Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (in CAG XI)

the ancient comment at ors on pl at o and ar ist otle

x

Sextus Empiricus (S.E.)

Math. = adversus Mathematicos (Against the Mathematicians)

Pyr. = Purrōneioi hupotupōseis (Outlines of Pyrrhonism)

Simplicius (Simp.)

in Cat. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (in CAG VIII)

in Cael. = Commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo (in CAG VII)

in Epict. = Commentary on Epictetus’ Handbook, ed. Hadot 1996

in Ph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (in CAG IX & X)

Strabo (Str.)

Syrianus (Syrian.)

in Metaph. = Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (in CAG VI 1)

Th emistius (Th em.)

in APo. = Paraphrasis on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics (in CAG V 1)

in APr. = Paraphrasis on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (in CAG XXIII 3)

in de An. = Paraphrasis on Aristotle’s De anima (in CAG V 3)

Or. = Orationes

in Phys. = Paraphrasis on Aristotle’s Physics (in CAG V 2)

xi

Chronology

bce c.427–347 Plato

384–322 Aristotle

mid-4th Crantor (Plato’s student) writes a partial commentary on the

century Timaeus

c.330 Zenon of Citium starts teaching in the Stoa poikilē in the Athenian

agora, founding the Stoic school of philosophy

c.315–241 Arcesilaus

c.306 Epicurus starts teaching at the garden (kēpos)

266 Arcesilaus becomes head of Plato’s Academy, and under his lead the

Academy turns sceptical. Teaching at Aristotle’s Lyceum stagnates

c.100–60 Aristotelian “revival” with an edition of Aristotle’s esoteric works.

Anonymous Commentary on the Th eaetetus is the first (preserved)

linear commentary (dating uncertain). Andronicus and his pupils

Boethus of Sidon, Nicolaus of Damascus, Alexander of Aegae and

Sotion begin writing on the Categories. Th e Platonists Aristo of

Alexandria, Cratippus and Eudorus start writing on the Categories.

Teaching at Plato’s Academy is interrupted

ce c.100–150 Aspasius

Aft er 100 Commentary by Aspasius (in EN) is the first (partly) preserved

commentary on Aristotle. Adrastus, Herminus, Sosigenes, Aristotle

of Mytilene emerge as commentators. Platonist attacks on Aristotle

by Atticus, Lucius and Nicostratus

129–216 Galen: a Platonist doctor

198–209 Alexander of Aphrodisias is nominated as the holder of the Aristote￾lian chair in Athens

205–70 Plotinus: in Rome

the ancient comment at ors on pl at o and ar ist otle

xii

c.234–305 Porphyry: Plotinus’ student and a commentator

c.240–325 Iamblichus

c.304 Iamblichus, having perhaps been a student of Porphyry, returns to

Syria to found a school

c.320 Dexippus, follower of Iamblichus, dies

c.317–88 Th emistius: in Constantinople

Late 300s/ Plutarch of Athens

early 400s

411–85 Proclus: born in Constantinople, studies in Alexandria

431 Proclus comes to Athens from Alexandria to study under Plutarch

of Athens and Syrianus. Syrianus succeeds Plutarch of Athens as

head of Plato’s Academy

435/45–517/26 Ammonius, in Alexandria: his father is Hermeias

c.480–524/5 Boethius, in Rome, a Christian

Late 400s Hermeias and Ammonius (his son) lead the Alexandrian school;

John Philoponus (a Christian) and Simplicius study there with

Ammonius

529–31 Justinian’s edicts cause closure of the Athenian Platonic school

531 Simplicius continues working, first in Persia, then in an uncertain

location. In Alexandria, Olympiodorus follows Ammonius as the

head of the Alexandrian school

500s Th e first translations and commentaries are made by Syrians

onwards on Aristotle’s Categories

700s–900s Teaching continues in the Byzantine world, even though real

universities do not yet exist. Arabic philosophy grows and aft er 750s

begins an active translation movement of Greek works into Arabic,

oft en via Syriac. Aristotle’s Th eology, a paraphrase of some of Plotinus’

Enneads is influential and connected to the works of Aristotle.

c.730– Byzantine commentaries on Aristotle. Th e only commentary on

Plato from that period is George Pachymeres’ supplement to Proclus

on the last sections of the Parmenides

980–1037 Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna): writes extensive commentaries on Aristotle’s

works

1000s Michael Psellos comments on and paraphrases Aristotle’s Organon

Early 1100s Michael of Ephesus and Eustratius of Nicaea work on a project of

commenting on neglected works by Aristotle initiated by princess

Anna Komnene. Michael of Ephesus writes several commentar￾ies on Aristotle’s biological works (e.g. De partibus animalium and

Parva naturalia) and on the Nicomachean Ethics. Eustratius writes

on Posterior Analytics Book II and the Nicomachean Ethics

1126–98 Ibn Rushd (Averroes): continues commenting on Aristotle, writing

commentaries of three different lengths (short, intermediate, long)

1

one

Introduction

A starting-point

What is a commentary?

What distinguishes a philosophical commentary from all other

philosophical treatises? Can we pinpoint a set of presuppositions

that characterize a commentary? In the colloquial sense, comment￾ing refers to presenting opinions on or reacting to something, be it

something scientific or artistic, written or spoken, advanced or ordi￾nary. If this were all there was to commenting, it would be virtually

impossible to find any philosophical works that are not commentar￾ies. Th us philosophical commenting – or perhaps all commenting in

texts – requires something more than making comments in ordinary

speech. Yet some conceptual link remains between the two activities.

At the least, in both cases it is vital that comments are presented

about something: commenting has an object. However, this is not

a sufficient criterion for identifying commentaries. In a sense, any

reasonable philosophical activity is about something, whether the

object is a literary product (a written or oral text) or reality.

A closer description of a commentary can be arrived at if we

require that the object of a commentary be a text, written or oral. Let

us call such a text “the object text” of a commentary. Commentaries

the ancient comment at ors on pl at o and ar ist otle

2

in this sense can proceed more loosely if only parts of a text are com￾mented on and others are not, and the commentary does not aim

at anything like a complete coverage of the text. Such works can be

distinguished from linear or formal commentaries, which follow the

object text line by line and cover most of its contents. Even though

there are interpretive works on oral texts that can be characterized

as commentaries, the more extensive linear commentaries require

that the culture in which they are produced be sufficiently literate

(see also Baltussen 2007). Th is is also true of the ancient commen￾taries (exēgēsis, hupomnēma).1

Some less comprehensive and non￾linear commentaries were written quite soon aft er the death of Plato

(Plato’s pupil Crantor apparently wrote such a commentary on the

Timaeus; Procl. in Ti. 1.76,1–2), but we have to wait until the first

century bce before more extensive linear commentaries emerge.

Probably the earliest such commentary is an anonymous commen￾tary on Plato’s Th eaetetus (ed. Bastiniani & Sedley 1995).2

In the first

century bce, we also find the first linear commentaries on Aristotle’s

works. Before the linear philosophical commentaries that we are

concerned with in this book, there was an exegetical tradition of

interpreting religious statements such as the oracle statements (see

e.g. Betegh 2004: 46; Baltussen 2004). In philosophy too, texts closely

resembling formal commentaries are found quite early; a famous

instance is the section in Plato’s Protagoras (339a–348c) containing

an interpretation of Simonides’ poem. Even though this section has

humorous or ironical undertones, it must be noted that these can

only produce their effect if they sufficiently resemble a real instance

of such an interpretive activity.3

As regards commentaries in general, a typical prerequisite is that

the object – written or oral text, or an artistic piece – is important or

valuable. Further, commentaries are oft en written because the object

is considered difficult to understand. Th e implicit purpose of a com￾mentary, then, is to convey the valuable text, oral material or artwork

to an audience who might otherwise be deprived of the information

it provides, its artistic value or the skill of expression with which the

piece has been produced, or whatever it might be that the diffi cult

surface of the commented object conceals. A similar idea can also