## 1. Introduction



The primary purpose of a commentary is to explain a text. Typically,
the text is divided into lemmata (plural of lemma). A lemma is what is quoted from a
text in order to explain and interpret it. Some times the text is
quoted in its entirety. Other times only its beginning is recalled.
The lemma is always followed by an analysis of the text. Commentaries
were not written exclusively on philosophical works. Any poetical or
scientific work that came to be regarded as authoritative could become
the object of a commentary. For instance, the tradition of writing
commentaries on the Hippocratic corpus started very early. Although
most of this tradition is lost, the commentaries that Galen wrote on
the Hippocratic corpus have come down to us. Galen was a doctor who
lived and wrote in the second half of the 2nd
century CE. Interestingly enough, his exegetical activity was not
confined to Hippocrates. Galen wrote commentaries on several of
Aristotle's works, specifically on the *De
Interpretatione*, the *Prior* and *Posterior
Analytics*, and the *Categories* (Galen, *On my Own
Books*, XIX 47). In all probability, these commentaries were not
intended for publication but only for the use of a small group of
friends and students. Here is what Galen says about his commentary on
the *Categories*:



> 
> On Aristotle's work on *The Ten Categories* I had not
> previously written any commentary, either for myself or for others;
> when subsequently somebody asked me for something on the solution
> posed on that work, <I wrote a commentary> with the firm
> instruction that he should only show it to students who had already
> read the book with a teacher, or at least made a start with some other
> commentaries, such as those of Adrastus and Aspasius (Galen, *On My
> Own Books*, XIX 42, Kuhn, trans. Singer).
> 



Galen makes clear that he regards the commentator as a teacher and as
an expositor of a text with an audience of students in mind. Moreover,
as Galen presents the matter, the commentary was a teaching tool
addressed to students with specific levels of knowledge. The students
who were expected to read Galen on the *Categories* were not
absolute beginners. They were students who either had previously
benefited from the study of this treatise with a teacher or had become
acquainted with the *Categories* through some more elementary
commentaries. Galen refers to the commentaries written by Adrastus and
Aspasius. By so doing, he gives us an idea of the profusion of
commentaries that were written on the *Categories*. These
commentaries were written one after the other as part of an already
consolidated exegetical practice. Most of these commentaries have not
reached us. We no longer have the commentaries that Adrastus and
Aspasius wrote on the *Categories*, nor do we have the
commentary that Galen wrote on the same treatise. This frustrating (at
least for us) fact is ultimately due to the very nature of this
literary production. Each generation of commentators read and
interpreted Aristotle in the light of their own theoretical
preoccupations and proclivities, only to be replaced by the next
generation of commentators. One remarkable exception is Alexander of
Aphrodisias, a younger contemporary of Galen. His commentaries survive
because they were adopted as exemplary models by later commentators.
But not all of them have come down to us. For example, Alexander wrote
a commentary on the *Categories* (Simplicius, *In Cat*.
1.16). This commentary suffered the same fate as those written by
Adrastus, Aspasius, Galen, and others. Today it survives only in
fragmentary form, incorporated in the commentaries that a later
generation of interpreters wrote on the *Categories*. 


## 2. The Pre-History of the Commentary Tradition: The Fortune of the *Categories* in the 1st century BCE



The critical engagement with Aristotle that began toward the end of
the Hellenistic age and continued throughout the centuries that
followed was directed to works such as the *Categories*, which
had been largely ignored in the preceding centuries. This engagement
presupposes the availability of Aristotle's writings in a form
that suited the interests and needs of the time. Although the
information in our possession is slim, it strongly suggests that an
intense editorial activity took place in the 1st century
BCE. Apellicon of Teos, a bibliophile rather than a philosopher, seems
to have produced copies of Aristotle's works in the 90s (Strabo,
*Geo*. XIII I 54); Tyrannion of Amisus, a grammarian and
enthusiast of Aristotle (*philaristoteles*), who had
access to Apellicon's books, may have done the same in the 60s
(but our sources do not say that he edited the works of Aristotle;
they only say that he "put in order the books of
Aristotle"; Strabo, *Geo*. XIII I 54; Plutarch,
*Sulla* 26 468 B-C). According to the tradition, these
editorial labors were surpassed by that of Andronicus of Rhodes, who
is credited with the production of the first reliable edition of
Aristotle; an edition that exercised an enormous influence on the
Post-Hellenistic return to Aristotle. More information on Andronicus
and his putative edition of Aristotle is available in the



> 
> Supplement on Andronicus of Rhodes.
> 



In reality, Andronicus could not be entirely responsible for the
revival of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle. This revival was,
at least in part, independent of him. Moreover, a close study of the
fortune that the *Categories* enjoyed in this context suggests
that the return to Aristotle took different forms and involved a great
variety of exegetical positions not necessarily related to one
another. Finally, the return to Aristotle did not necessarily involve
either the acceptance of the views stated by Aristotle or their
codification in the form of a commentary. In short, there was no
orthodoxy in the Aristotelian tradition at this early stage
(*pace* Moraux 1973, pages xii-xx, especially
xvi-xvii).



We have the names of five ancient interpreters (*palaioi
exegetai*) of the *Categories* whose activity
is placed in the 1st century BCE: Andronicus, Boethus,
Athenodorus, Ariston, and Eudorus (Simplicius, *In Cat*.
159.32-33). It is likely that, of these five philosophers, only
Boethus of Sidon wrote a commentary on the *Categories*.
Boethus' activity can be dated to the second half of the
1st century BCE. Simplicius contrasts his
"word-by-word exegesis" to that of Andronicus, who is said
"to have paraphrased the *Categories*" (Simplicius,
*In Cat.* 29.28-30.5). We cannot exclude that Simplicius
projected his own literary conventions onto Andronicus and Boethus,
and that *by his own standards* Boethus and Andronicus were
engaged in two different exegetical exercises. On the one hand, there
is some clear evidence that Andronicus did rephrase and clarify
Aristotle's text in order to extract Aristotle's
intentions. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that
Andronicus wrote in the style that will later be codified as
paraphrase. Themistius was the champion of this particular form of
exegesis in antiquity. Themistius does not give
us names of predecessors. His silence is open to different
interpretations: either Themistius did not know of Andronicus'
work on the *Categories* or this work was not written in the
style of a paraphrase. Fortunately, it is not essential for us to
establish whether or not Andronicus was the first paraphraser of
Aristotle. What matters is that his style of exegesis was perceived as
different from that of Boethus. Unlike Andronicus, Boethus was engaged
in an in-depth examination of whole book of the *Categories* in
the form of a word-by-word commentary. Boethus was highly regarded in
antiquity. Simplicius refers to him as "the amazing
Boethus" (*In Cat*. 1.18), "the noble
Boethus" (*In Cat*. 379.32), and prizes "the
sharpness of his mind" (*In Cat*. 1.23 and 434.18).
Except for a few testimonies, his commentary has not survived. From
these few testimonies, however, it is clear that Boethus concerned
himself with the difficulties that the Stoics raised against
Aristotle's *Categories*. The Stoics attacked the
*Categories* on the assumption that this treatise is on
language and about linguistic expressions. They argued that as a
treatise on language and about linguistic expressions the
*Categories* was incomplete. Boethus resisted this reading of
the *Categories* and anticipated a line of interpretation that
was then followed, among others, by Porphyry. 



Boethus' defense of the *Categories* documents that this
treatise was intensely read and studied, and not only among
philosophers friendly to Aristotle. The Stoic philosopher Athenodorus
is credited with a book (Simplicius, *In Cat*. 86.22) or books
(Porphyry, *In Cat*. 62.25-26) significantly entitled
*Against Aristotle's Categories*. We know very little
about Athenodorus. *If* he is the same person as Athenodorus of
Tarsus, who was a friend and adviser of the Emperor Augustus and was
appointed by him as governor of Taurus, then Athenodorus was active in
the second half of the 1st century BCE. There is no
compelling reason to think that his critique of the
*Categories* was written in the form of a commentary.
Athenodorus could have been content with offering a series of
objections and difficulties, just as the Platonist Lucius and
Nicostratus would do more than a hundred years later (Simplicius,
*In Cat* 1.18-20: "Others have chosen simply to
present a series of difficulties (*aporiai*) arising from the
text, which is what has been done by Lucius, and after him by
Nicostratus, who took over for himself the job of Lucius").



The temptation to credit all ancient interpreters of the
*Categories* with a commentary must be resisted also in the
case of Eudorus of Alexandria. It is generally assumed that Eudorus
flourished in the middle of the first century BCE. Simplicius is not
content to enumerate Eudorus among the ancient interpreters of the
*Categories*. He preserves nine testimonies in which Eudorus
took issue with Aristotle. But no inference about the form of his
literary production is possible. The only safe inference is that the
study of the *Categories* was not confined to the school of
Aristotle. In fact, Eudorus was not a Peripatetic philosopher.
Simplicius refers to him as the "Academic Eudorus" (*In
Cat*. 187.10).



The last name on list of ancient interpreters of the
*Categories* is that of Ariston of Alexandria. From Cicero
(*Lucullus* SSSS 11-12), we learn that Ariston
was among the learned men who attended the conversations that took
place in Alexandria in 87 BCE between Heraclitus of Tyrus, a former
student of Clitomachus and Philo of Larissa, and Antiochus of Ascalon.
Cicero depicts Ariston as a pupil of Antiochus. That Ariston was a
pupil of Antiochus is confirmed by the *Index Academicorum*, a
history of the Academy written by Philodemus in the 1st
century BCE. There, we are told that Antiochus "took over
<the Academy>" (XXXIV 34 Dorandi). A list of his students
is also given. The list includes the names of Aristus,
Antiochus' brother; Ariston and Dio of Alexandria; and Cratippus
of Pergamum (XXXV 1-6 Dorandi). What immediately follows is
extremely interesting: "Ariston of Alexandria and Cratippus of
Pegamum deserted the Academy and turned Peripatetic" (XXXV
10-16 Dorandi). We are not told the reasons for their defection
to Peripatetic philosophy. In the case of Ariston it is also difficult
to see what this defection really involved. From the information in
our possession we can only say that he wrote about the
*Categories*. But there is no evidence that Ariston wrote in
the form of a commentary. His case is significantly different from
that of Andronicus and Boethus. Andronicus and Boethus made an attempt
to organise, clarify, and indeed defend, the philosophy of Aristotle.
This does not seem to apply to Ariston. His name is never related to
those of Andronicus and Boethus. In addition, there is no evidence
that Ariston was aware of the existence of Andronicus and Boethus, or
that he was influenced by their works or their activity as interpreters of
Aristotle. That the edition of Andronicus played a role in the
conversion of Ariston to the philosophy of Aristotle is merely a
conjecture.



There is a wealth of information in the subsequent commentary
tradition about the early (that is, 1st century BCE)
reception of the *Categories*. Even the expert reader is often
left wondering how best to organize it. The reader of this entry will
find a useful presentation of the extant evidence in a recent
monograph produced by Michael Griffin (Griffin 2015, to be read along
with the critical comments offered in Falcon 2018 and Menn 2018;
with a response by Griffin in Griffin 2020). According to Griffin,
Andronicus of Rhodes played a key role in the Post-Hellenistic surge
of interest in Aristotle'*Categories*. Andronicus placed
the *Categories* at the outset of his catalogue
(*pinakes*) of Aristotle's writings. He saw in this
treatise a useful introduction to Aristotle's theory of
predication, aimed at (absolute) beginners in Aristotelian logic. In
the end, what Andronicus thought of the *Categories* did not
matter; what mattered was the place that he assigned to this work in
his *pinakes*. The prominence assigned to the work in his
*pinakes* contributed to attract attention to an hitherto
obscure work.



What do we learn from the rich and complex story of the early
reception of Aristotle's *Categories*? We learn that the
return to Aristotle attracted thinkers with a diverse philosophical
background and a different philosophical agenda. We also learn that
their critical engagement with Aristotle resulted in a few creative
readings of the *Categories*. To the extent that those readings
can be reconstructed, they do not take us any closer to
Aristotle's original intentions. More directly, and more boldly:
there existed, and still exists, a gap between
Aristotle'*Categories* and all his interpreters. This gap
opened up early on in the Hellenistic times. As a result, all his
subsequent (that is, Post-Hellenistic) interpreters struggled to close
this gap. Early interpreters of the *Categories* such as
Andronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon are no exception to the rule.
Their efforts, just like ours, had a mixed success at best. In the
end, Aristotle'*Categories* was then, and still remains
now, an elusive work.


## 3. Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Aristotelian Tradition in the 1st and 2nd century CE



The revival of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle outlived the
1st century BCE. The exegetical activity on
Aristotle'works continued to flourish in the 1st and
2nd century CE. New layers of interpretation were added in
these two centuries. They greatly contributed to the formation of the
exegetical tradition that found its culmination in the commentaries of
Alexander of Aphrodisias.



Alexander of Aegae wrote about the *Categories* (Simplicius,
*In Cat*. 10.20; 13.16) and the *De caelo* (Simplicius,
*In DC* 430.29-32). Since he is said to have been teacher
of the Emperor Nero, his exegetical activity can be dated to the first
half of the 1st century CE. Nothing can be said about the
form of his literary production. This is also the case of two other
interpreters of the *Categories*: Sotion and Achaius
(Simplicius, *In Cat*. 159.23). Although their exegetical
activity is much more difficult to date, there is one line of argument
that places it in the 1st century CE. The information at
our disposal is frustratingly meagre, but it is hard to escape the
conclusion that the *Categories* continued to be at the centre
of the exegetical activity on the philosophy of Aristotle. The
situation did not change in the first half of the 2nd
century CE. From Galen we learn that Adrastus of Aphrodisias and
Aspasius wrote elementary commentaries on the *Categories*.
From the way Galen refers to these commentaries, they must have been
easily available and routinely used to introduce students to the
*Categories*. Adrastus and Aspasius established themselves as
respected interpreters of Aristotle. We know that their commentaries
were still used about one hundred years later by the great Plotinus
(Porphyry, *Life of Plotinus*. 14.12-14). Aspasius did
not confine his exegetical activity to the *Categories*. He
wrote commentaries on the *De Interpretatione*, the
*Physics*, and the *Metaphysics*. These commentaries
were used and quoted by later generations of commentators. The
reputation that Aspasius enjoyed in antiquity explains why his
commentary on Aristotle's *Ethics* has survived. This
commentary is the earliest surviving commentary on an Aristotelian
text.



One significant impact on the way the practice of philosophy developed
toward the end of the 2nd century CE was the intervention
of the imperial power in matters of education. This intervention seems
to go as far back as the Emperor Antoninus Pius, who is said to have
established public chairs of rhetoric and philosophy in the provinces.
But it was Marcus Aurelius who first established Imperial chairs of
philosophy in Athens in 176 CE. From our ancient sources we are told
that those chairs were in Platonic, Stoic, Peripatetic, and Epicurean
philosophy. In all probability, the first holder of the chair in
Aristotelian philosophy was Alexander of Damascus, an older
contemporary of Galen described by him as "knowledgeable about
the doctrines of Plato but more inclined to those of Aristotle"
(Galen, *De praenotione* XIV 627-628 Kuhn). The
holder of the Imperial chairs of philosophy was a public teacher and
received an annual salary. His teaching consisted in lecturing on the
texts of the founder of the school. Alexander of Aphrodisias was one
of these teachers publicly appointed to a chair of Aristotelian
philosophy. Alexander refers to himself as a teacher--namely, a
*didaskalos* (*De fato* 164.15). As a teacher of
Aristotelian philosophy, Alexander was concerned not only with
explicating this philosophy but also with defending it in the context
of debates between philosophical schools. His attitude toward
Aristotle is best expressed at the very beginning of his *De
anima*. This treatise is not a commentary on Aristotle's
*De anima* but an investigation of the soul based on the
principles established in Aristotle's *De anima*. The
task that here Alexander sets for himself is that of clarifying and
promoting the views of Aristotle:



> 
> In all philosophical questions, the present writer cherishes a special
> regard for the authority of Aristotle, in the conviction that his
> teaching on these matters has greater claim to truth than that of
> other philosophers. The purpose of this present treatise will
> therefore be satisfactorily accomplished if the doctrine of the soul
> which I here set forth is as clear an exposition as possible of what
> Aristotle has said on this subject; and I shall limit my own
> contribution to explanations of the specific points that Aristotle
> himself has so excellently stated. (Alexander, *De anima* 2.
> 5-9, translation after Fotinis)
> 



Alexander wrote commentaries on most (but not all) of
Aristotle's treatises. His commentaries on the *Prior
Analytics* (Book 1), *Topics*, *Meteorology*, and
the work *On Sense and Sense Objects* have survived. Fragments
from his lost commentaries on the *Posterior Analytics* and
*Physics* have been collected and edited (in Moraux 1979 and
Rashed 2011, respectively). A long excerpt from his lost commentary on
*Generation and Corruption*, extant only in the Arabic
tradition, is now available in English translation (Gannage
2005). Of the commentary on the *Metaphysics* that is
transmitted under his name, only the first five books (*Alfa*
to *Delta*) are genuine. Since Praetcher (Praetcher 1906) the
commentary on the other books (*Epsilon* to *Nu*) is
generally attributed to Michael of Ephesus. This attribution is now
vindicated (in Luna 2001) except for book *Epsilon*, which
should be attributed to Stephanus of Alexandria (Golitsis 2016b). The
commentary on the *Sophistical Refutations*, traditionally
attributed to Alexander, is spurious. It should be attributed to
Michael of Ephesus (Ebbesen 1981, I: 268-285).


Although Alexander is best known for his
commentaries on Aristotle, his exegetical activity extended to include
short discussions on specific points of interpretation within
Aristotelian philosophy. These discussions are collected in four books
of *Problems and Solutions* and in a further book traditionally
known as *Mantissa* (literally, "Makeweight"). These
collections offer an eloquent illustration of the extraordinary
variety of exegetical methods deployed in the exposition of
Aristotle's philosophy. Up to a point, the deployment of such a
variety of exegetical methods can be explained with reference to the
pedagogic function of these writings, which were used as teaching
tools in the instruction of students with different levels of
knowledge of Aristotle's philosophy. 



Alexander's exegetical activity ultimately consisted in an
effort of systematization combined with an attempt to extract what he
regarded as the genuine thought of Aristotle. It was this loyalty to
the philosophy of the master coupled with the finesse of his
interpretation that gained Alexander the reputation of "the most
authentic interpreter of Aristotle" (Simplicius, *In
Phys.* 80.16). His commentaries set standards of interpretations
that remained largely unsurpassed in antiquity and beyond. But it is
important to realize that his extraordinary accomplishment was the
culmination of the exegetical tradition that had started in the
1st century BCE. More to the point: Alexander was not the
first but rather the last authentic interpreter of Aristotle. Although
subsequent generations of commentators were profoundly influenced by
Alexander, they were motivated by a very different exegetical
ideal. Their primary aim was no longer to recover and preserve
Aristotle's thought for its own sake, but rather for the sake of
finding agreement between Aristotle and Plato and presenting the two
philosophers as part of one and the same philosophical outlook. (For
further information on Alexander as a commentator and a philosopher, I
refer the reader to Sections 2 and 3 of the entry on Alexander of Aphrodisias.)
 


## 4. The Commentary Tradition in Late Antiquity: The Place of the *Categories* in the Reading Curriculum



The study of Aristotle through close textual reading of his works
continued, if not increased, in Late Antiquity. So did the supply of
commentaries on all his major works. Unlike Alexander of Aphrodisias,
most of these commentators considered themselves followers of Plato
(that is, Platonists.) By their lights, Plato's philosophy was
superior to all the systems of thought that came later. In addition,
they believed that all these later systems started out as more or less
faithful developments of Plato's philosophy. Aristotle was no
exception to the rule. On the contrary, these commentators viewed
Aristotle as a true descendant of Plato. This explains why, by
reverting to Plato, they did not mean to reject Aristotle's
philosophy. On the contrary, they were convinced that this philosophy
could be integrated into a Platonic framework. The Platonism of Late
Antiquity was so comprehensive as a system of thought that it could
harbor Aristotle's philosophy as one of its elements. In this
frame of mind, a major exegetical concern became that of finding
substantial agreement between Plato and Aristotle. For most of these
commentators, the disagreement on specific issues between Aristotle
and Plato did not preclude harmony between the two philosophers on a
deeper level.



In reality, the conciliation of Plato and Aristotle attempted by these
commentators consisted in an appropriation of Aristotle's works
as a pre-requisite for the study of Plato's philosophy. Among
these works, the *Categories* continued to enjoy a special
status. Following a tradition that may go all the way back to
Andronicus of Rhodes (see the section on the early fortune of the
*Categories*), this treatise was considered an elementary
introduction to the whole of philosophy and as such it was used to
teach beginners with little or no knowledge of philosophy (Porphyry,
*In Cat.* 56. 28-29). For this reason the exegetical
activity on this short but difficult treatise never stopped but in
fact increased in Late Antiquity. The key figure for the reception of
the *Categories* during this period was undoubtedly Porphyry
(*ca* 234-305 CE). The latter wrote a commentary in seven
books addressed to a student named Gedalius. In this commentary,
Porphyry offered a complete interpretation of the *Categories*,
including a resolution of all previous *aporiai* (Simplicius,
*In Cat.* 2. 6-9). He also dealt with the traditional
criticism of the *Categories*, including a comprehensive
discussion of the objections leveled by the earlier interpreters of
the *Categories* (e.g., the Stoic Athenodorus and Cornutus, and
the Platonic Lucius and Nicostratus). His defense of the
*Categories* relied, and indeed expanded, on the Peripatetic
tradition (e.g., Boethus of Sidon, Alexander of Aphrodisias). An
excerpt from this commentary has been recently discovered in what is
known as the Archimedes Palimpsest (See R. Chiaradonna, M. Rashed, and
D. Sedley 2013). Porphyry wrote another commentary on the
*Categories*. This second commentary has reached us. The
results achieved in the more comprehensive commentary are here
abbreviated, simplified, and made accessible in the form of a dialogue
between a teacher and a pupil. The existence of two commentaries
written in a different format on the very same treatise by the same
author has to be understood in the light of the fact that these
commentaries were teaching tools and were used to teach students with
different skills and different levels of familiarity with the
*Categories*. Finally, Porphyry is the author of the
*Isagoge* (literally, "Introduction")*.*
This short book is an introduction to Aristotle's theory of
predication. It is addressed to absolute beginners in philosophy whose
reading curriculum then continued with Aristotle's logic,
beginning with the *Categories*.



The commentary addressed to Gedalius became an instant success and an
example to imitate. Iamblichus (*ca* 242-325 CE) is known
to have written a commentary on the *Categories* that closely
followed this commentary, abbreviating the argument and making the
overall interpretation clearer. He is also known to have amplified the
Porphyrian interpretation with the help of the book that the
Pythagorean Archytas wrote on the doctrine of the categories
(Simplicius, *In Cat.* 2.9-14). The writing in question
is a late forgery intended to claim Aristotle's doctrine of the
ten categories for the Pythagorean school. Iamblichus considered this
forgery an authentic anticipation of Aristotle's
*Categories* and a vindication of his vision of philosophy as a
single tradition of wisdom, starting with Pythagoras and continuing
with Plato and Aristotle. Iamblichus is reported to have made use of
the considerations of Archytas in the attempt to demonstrate the
overall agreement between Aristotle and the Pythagorean doctrine.



Iamblichus' commentary is lost, but we can form an idea of the
contribution that this commentary made to the ancient debate on the
*Categories* thanks to Dexippus. Nothing is known about
Dexippus besides the fact that he was a pupil of Iamblichus. His
surviving commentary provides a concise and clear presentation of the
solutions offered to the *aporiai* leveled against
Aristotle's *Categories*. Dexippus opted for the
question-and-answer format, which better suited his purpose to provide
a brief and relatively simple summary of the exegetical results
achieved by his predecessors, especially Porphyry and Iamblichus.
Dexippus was not an original thinker. According to Simplicius, he
added virtually nothing to the considerations of Porphyry and
Iamblichus (Simplicius, *In Cat*. 2. 29-30).



After having mastered the *Categories*, the student of
philosophy was expected to read the rest of the Aristotelian corpus
before turning to Plato's dialogues. Syrianus, the teacher of
Proclus (*ca* 410-485 CE), exposed his students to both
Plato and Aristotle, starting with Aristotle. Proclus arrived in
Athens around 430 CE, at a time when Plutarch, the previous head of
the school, was an old man and Syrianus had already taken over. As a
young and gifted student, Proclus read Aristotle's *De
anima* and Plato's *Phaedo* with Plutarch. But when
Plutarch died, Syrianus became responsible for his philosophical
education. Under the direction of Syrianus, Proclus mastered in less
than two years the entire Aristotelian corpus. He studied the logical,
ethical, political, physical works and finished up with theology
(Marinus, *Life of Proclus*, chapters 12 and 13). The sequence
logic-ethics-politics-physics-theology reflected not only a certain
organization of the teaching but also a particular conception of
philosophy. To begin with, the first place assigned to
Aristotle's logical writings was not neutral with respect to a
certain view of the nature of logic. By this time logic was regarded
as a tool for philosophy. This conception of logic and its relation to
the rest of philosophy is reflected in the collective title
*Organon* that we still use to refer to Aristotle's
logical writings. Moreover, the non-theological writings were
preliminary to the study of theology as it is offered in the
*Metaphysics*. This treatise was the last of Aristotle's
works to be studied. The conception of God as an intellect and a
living being enjoying the state of perfect actuality was designed by
Syrianus as the culmination of his course on Aristotle's
philosophy. Once Proclus had mastered the *Metaphysics* and
learned about the Aristotelian conception of the divine, Syrianus
directed him to Plato, whose dialogues were also read in a definite
sequence, culminating with the *Timaeus* and the
*Parmenides*.



This attitude toward the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato was passed
from Syrianus to Proclus, and from Proclus to Ammonius (*ca*
440-520 CE). The commentaries of Ammonius on the
*Categories*, the *De Interpretatione*, the *Prior
Analytics*, and Porphyry's *Isagoge* have come down
to us. The last is the earliest extant commentary on the
*Isagoge*. By this time the *Isagoge* had already
established itself as part of the reading curriculum of philosophy,
which continued with the *Categories*, the *De
Interpretatione* and the *Prior Analytics*. Note, however,
that Ammonius did not write his commentaries on the
*Categories*, the *Prior Analytics*, and perhaps the
*Isagoge*. They were produced by pupils who attended his
lectures on Aristotle. (For further information and discussion of his
commentaries, see Section 1.2 of the entry on
 Ammonius.)
 Other commentaries originated in the lecture room as a transcription
of the oral exposition delivered by the teacher. The commentaries on
the *Categories* based on the lectures offered by Olympiodorus
(*ca* 495-565 CE) and his pupil Elias (David) have
reached us. Philoponus (*ca* 490-570 CE) edited his own
lectures on the *Categories.* However, the most influential of
these later commentaries was the one that Simplicius wrote after 529
CE. Simplicius was a man of vast learning and extraordinary synthetic
powers. He was also acutely aware of writing at the end of a long and
venerable exegetical tradition. He consciously tried to assimilate and
blend together the various strands of this tradition. By so doing he
left us the most comprehensive and informative survey of the reception
of the *Categories* in antiquity. At first sight Simplicius may
look like a modern scholar. His commentary shows the great care and
precision of a thoughtful and dedicated interpreter who is explicating
the *Categories* through a close reading of the text. Yet there
is one important difference that must not be overlooked. Simplicius
was a Platonist and his exegetical activity was intended to show that
Plato and Aristotle were in substantial agreement. Simplicius is
adamantly clear on his own exegetical ideal:



> 
> <the worthy interpreter> must, I believe, not convict the
> philosopher of discordance by looking only at the letter of what
> <Aristotle> says against Plato; but he must look towards the
> spirit, and track down the harmony which reigns between them on the
> majority of points (Simplicius, *In Cat*. 7. 29-32,
> trans. Michael Case)
> 



The commentary tradition that found its culmination in Simplicius
consisted in a sincere attempt to arrive at a better understanding of
the *Categories*. By reading Simplicius' commentary one
still gets a sense of the extraordinary ingenuity that this tradition
employed in explicating this short yet elusive treatise*.* But
one also gets the impression that this tradition had no privileged
access to this text. Quite the opposite: from the beginning of the
revival of interest in the philosophy of Aristotle and into Late
Antiquity, the *Categories* remained a tantalizing puzzle. Not
only its title, but also its unity, structure, and place in the
Aristotelian corpus were intensely discussed. For instance, various
titles are attested in the commentary tradition: *Introduction to
the Topics*, *On the Genera of Being*, *On the Ten
Genera*, *The Ten Categories*, *Categories*
(Simplicius, *In Cat*. 15. 26-30). Each of these titles
reflected a certain interpretation of what the treatise is
about. Andronicus is the first interpreter who is known to have
preferred the title *Categories*. He rejected the title
*Introduction to the Topics* and considered the final chapters
of the *Categories*--the so-called
*Postpraedicamenta*--a later addition contrary to the
purpose of the book. He held that the people who added those chapters
also inscribed the book with the title *Introduction to the
Topics* (Simplicius, *In Cat*. 279. 8-10). By
contrast, Adrastus of Aphrodisias defended the relationship between
the *Categories* and the *Topics* in a work entitled
*Concerning the Order of Aristotle's Treatises*
(Simplicius, *In Cat*. 16. 1-4). The dispute was not
confined to the organization Aristotle's works, but it extended
to the philosophical significance of the treatise. The title
*Categories* eventually prevailed and, along with the title, a
certain interpretation of the treatise imposed itself.


## 5. The Exegetical Labor on the *De anima*



The impression that, from very early on, the interpreters were
struggling to understand Aristotle is confirmed by the commentary
tradition on the *De anima*. Consider, for example, *De
anima* 3.5. There, Aristotle famously argues for the existence of
an intellect that is separate, unaffected, and unmixed (*De
anima* 430 a 17-18). In antiquity commentators traditionally
referred to this intellect as the active (or productive) intellect,
*nous poietikos*. Discussion on how exactly this
intellect is to be understood started very early. There is evidence
that already Theophrastus puzzled over it (Themistius, *In De
anima* 110.18-28). Among other things, it is not obvious
what sort of thing the active intellect is supposed to be. More
directly, it is not clear whether it is a human or a divine intellect.
What Aristotle says outside of the *De anima* is equally
perplexing. In his work *On the Generation of Animals*
Aristotle speaks of an intellect that enters "from
without" (736 b 27). But it is not at all clear how the comment
that Aristotle makes in this context is to be understood. What exactly
is the status of this enigmatic intellect? How does it fit with the
discussion offered in the *De anima*?



Alexander of Aphrodisias developed a line of interpretation that made
the active intellect a non-human intellect and identified it with God.
His commentary on the *De anima* is lost. Instead we have the
*De anima* that he wrote following the principles that
Aristotle had established in his own *De anima.* There,
Alexander identifies the active intellect with "the first cause,
which is the cause and principle of existence to all the other
things" (Alexander, *De anima* 89. 9-10). The
intellect so understood is not only the cause of human thought; it is
also the cause of the existence of everything that there is in the
universe. This intellect can also be an object of thought. When this
happens, this intellect enters in us from without: "this is the
intellect from without which comes to be in us and is
imperishable" (Alexander, *De anima* 90.19-20).
Alexander makes it abundantly clear that this intellect alone is
imperishable and as such it is also divine. A similar but not
identical attempt to expand on the elliptical remarks that Aristotle
has left on the active intellect can be found in the *On
Intellect*, a short essay attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias
and preserved in the collection of brief exegetical writings known to
us as *Mantissa*.



Another text that has important implications for the reception of
Aristotle's treatment of the intellect is the paraphrase of the
*De anima* that Themistius wrote around 350 CE. There,
Themistius argues that the active intellect is the most accurate
specification of the human form (*In De anima*
100.35-36). Put differently, our essence as human beings is the
active intellect (*In De anima* 100.36-101.1). Although
Themistius does not name names, he is clearly reacting against the
reading advanced by Alexander of Aphrodisias. For Themistius the
active intellect is not God or the supreme principle upon which
everything depends for its existence. For him, the active intellect is
an integral part of the human soul: "the active intellect is in
the soul and it is like the most honourable part of the human
soul" (*In De anima* 103.4-5). Although the active
intellect so understood is a human intellect, it is emphatically not
conceived of as a personal intellect. Themistius is adamantly clear
that there is only one separate, unmixed, and unaffected active
intellect. Likewise, there is only one separate, unmixed, and
unaffected potential intellect, *nous dunamei*. According to
Themistius, both the active and the potential intellects are not
subject to generation and perishing. What is perishable is only the
common or passive intellect, *koinon* or *pathetikos
nous*. This third intellect is mixed with the body and its fate is
to perish along with the body (*In De anima* 105.28-29;
106.14-15).


## 6. Boethius and the Latin Tradition



Beginning some time in the fourth century CE, Aristotle's
*Organon* established itself as part of the reading curriculum
in the Latin tradition. Like the Greek tradition, the Latin tradition
employed a great variety of exegetical tools in the teaching of
Aristotle: paraphrases, elementary as well as more advanced
commentaries. In addition, the Latin tradition was confronted with the
specific problem of providing the students with adequate translations
of the relevant texts.



The tradition credits Marius Victorinus (fourth century CE) with a
translation of the *Categories*, the *De
Interpretatione*, and Porphyry's *Isagoge*
(Cassiodorus, *Instit.* II, 3, 18). The same tradition credits
him with a commentary in eight books on the *Categories*. A few
years later Vettius Agorius Praetextatus is known to have translated
the Greek paraphrases of the *Prior* and *Posterior
Analytics* produced by Themistius (Boethius, *De
Int.*2 3.6-4.3). None of these works have reached
us, with the exception of excerpts from Victorinus' translation
of the *Isagoge*. An anonymous paraphrase of the
*Categories* falsely attributed to Augustine and traditionally
known as *Categoriae Decem* has survived only because it was
widely read and used in the early Middle Ages. Finally, an incomplete
paraphrase of the *Categories* is preserved in Martianus
Capella's *On Dialectic* (the forth book of his *The
Marriage of Philosophy and Mercury*, an influential textbook on
the seven liberal arts dating from the fifth century CE). Even these
few remarks suffice to document a sustained effort to provide the
students with a Latin *Organon* that reflected the teaching
needs of the time.



The key figure for the reception of Aristotle in the Latin world was
Boethius. Best known for his *Consolation of Philosophy*,
Boethius (*ca* 475-526) was the transmitter of the
Aristotelian logical tradition to the early Middle Ages. His attitude
to the text of Aristotle and Plato was not different from that of the
other commentators of Late Antiquity. He regarded Plato and Aristotle
as philosophical authorities and was persuaded that the best way to do
philosophy was to read and comment on their works. Like the Platonists
of Late Antiquity, he was convinced that Plato and Aristotle were in
basic agreement, and that Aristotle's thought was to be
understood as a genuine development of Plato's. In this frame of
mind, Boethius planned to translate all the works of Aristotle that he
could find along with all the dialogues of Plato, and to comment on
all of them in order to show that Plato and Aristotle agreed on the
most significant philosophical points (Boethius *De
Int.*2 79. 9-80.9).



Boethius was able to execute this plan only in part. He managed to
translate the *Categories*, the *De Interpretatione*,
the *Prior Analytics*, the *Topics* and the
*Sophistical Refutations*. In addition, he translated
Porphyry's *Isagoge.* Boethius produced two commentaries
on the *Isagoge*. Along with these commentaries*,* he
wrote two commentaries on the *De Interpretatione*.



The practice of writing double commentaries is to be understood in the
light of the concern for pedagogy that motivates the entire commentary
tradition. Here is how Boethius explains why he wrote two commentaries
(or rather two versions of the same commentary) on the *De
Interpretatione*:



> 
> It has been my plan to disclose Aristotle's subtlest doctrines
> in a commentary organized in two versions; for what the first version
> contains prepares, to some extent, an easier path for those who are
> entering into these more profound and subtle matters. But because the
> second version develops in connection with the expositor's
> subtler doctrines, it is presented to be read and studied by those who
> are advanced in this inquiry and study (Boethius, *In De
> Int*.2 186. 2-9 after Kretzmann).
> 



Boethius also wrote a commentary on the *Categories*. This
commentary was intended to be an elementary exposition of the
treatise. Boethius planned to write a second exposition, addressed to
more advanced students (Boethius *In Cat*. 160 A-B). It is just
unclear whether he was able to produce this more advanced commentary.
(For further information on Boethius as a commentator, see Section 2
of the entry on
 Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius.)



The exegetical labor on the *Isagoge*, the *Categories*
and the *De Intepretatione* continued after Boethius. This
labor took often the form of glosses, that is, annotations written in
margin of copies of the *Isagoge*, the *Categories* and
the *De Interpretatione*. A survey of the exegetical results
reached in the early Latin Medieval tradition goes beyond the scope of
this entry. I refer the reader to the Bibliography for further reading
on the commentary tradition in the early Middle Ages.


## 7. Conclusion



There is no philosophy of the commentators in the sense of a definite
set of doctrines that all the ancient commentators on Aristotle
shared. What the ancient commentators shared was the practice of
reading and commenting on the texts of Aristotle on the crucial
assumption that Aristotle was a philosophical authority and his
writings deserved to be studied with great care.



Due to the almost complete loss of the relevant literature, we know
very little about the first generation of interpreters of Aristotle.
No picture of unity emerges from the little that has reached us. The
notion that all these interpreters wrote commentaries is not supported
by the information in our possession. The commentary eventually became
the standard form of exegesis. But even within the commentary
tradition there was room for a plurality of exegetical positions.
Different commentators developed different lines of interpretations in
the light of the different (often competing) concerns that motivated
their exegesis. The exegetical tradition that finds its culmination in
Alexander of Aphrodisias was primarily (but not exclusively) motivated
by an attempt to defend the philosophy of Aristotle in the context of
the ancient debate between philosophical schools. Alexander of
Aphrodisias viewed Aristotle as his master and devoted his exegetical
works to explicate and extract Aristotle's distinctive
philosophical position. While the Platonists of Late Antiquity put
themselves in continuity with this tradition, their exegesis was
largely an attempt to develop a philosophy that insisted on the
continuity between Plato and Aristotle. They wrote their commentaries
on the assumption that Aristotle and Plato were in substantial
agreement.