Table Of ContentAmmonius
On Aristotle On Interpretation 1-8
This page intentionally left blank
Ammonius
On Aristotle
On Interpretation 1-8
Translated by David Blank
LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway
London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in 1996 by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Paperback edition fi rst published 2014
© 2013 David Blank (Appendix, Richard Sorabji)
David Blank has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identifi ed as Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on
or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can
be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN HB: 978-0-7156-2657-3
PB: 978-1-4725-5844-2
ePDF: 978-1-4725-0184-4
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
The present translations have been made possible by generous
and imaginative funding from the following sources: the National
Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Research Programs,
an independent federal agency of the USA; the Leverhulme Trust;
the British Academy; the Jowett Copyright Trustees; the Royal
Society (UK); Centro Internazionale A. Beltrame di Storia dello
Spazio e del Tempo (Padua); Mario Mignucci; Liverpool University.
The editor wishes to thank Rob Wisnovsky for his help in preparing
this volume for press.
Typeset by Ray Davies
Printed and bound in Great Britain
Contents
Introduction 1
Translation 9
Preface 11
Chapter 1 18
Chapter 2 39
Chapter 3 55
Chapter 4 65
Chapter 5 73
Chapter 6 87
Chapter 7 92
Chapter 8 131
Notes 135
Appendix: the commentators 163
English-Greek Glossary 173
Greek-English Index 177
Index of Passages Cited 194
Subject Index 199
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
Upon the death of Hermeias, the pupil of Syrianus (head of the
Athenian school from 431/2) who had come to Alexandria as the first
professor of Platonic philosophy in that seat of ancient learning which
had meanwhile become the third See of Christendom, the city fathers
continued to pay his salary to his widow. She was Aedesia, a relative
of Syrianus, and she had been destined to marry Proclus (410-485),1
until a divine sign warned against it; she died in old age around 475.
Her marriage to Hermeias produced three boys, one of whom died in
childhood under nearly saintly conditions and two of whom became
philosophers: Ammonius, who must have been born sometime after
435, perhaps around 440-5,2 and Heliodorus.
The continuation of Hermeias’ salary was an investment by Alex-
andria in the education of the two sons, particularly Ammonius, who
was to assume his father’s chair upon his return from Athens.
Ammonius studied in Athens with Proclus, who succeeded Syrianus
in the professorship after the latter’s death. He returned to Alexan-
dria as professor by about 470 and taught there successfully until his
death, between 517 and 526.3 The often critical Damascius is expan-
sive in his praise of Ammonius,4 saying that he stood out even among
his elder peers, that he helped most of the exegetes of his time, and
1 Proclus’ chronology makes better sense with this date of birth, although 409, 412
and 413 are also possible: cf. E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschicht-
lichen Entwicklung III.2, Leipzig 1923, 5th ed., 835 n. 2. He came to Athens in his 20th
year (thus, 430) and studied two years with Plutarch (Marinus Life of Proclus 12)
before the latter was succeeded by Syrianus in 431/2.
2 The terminus post quem is inferred from the date of Proclus’ arrival in Athens and
study with Syrianus; the probable later date is inferred from the late date of his death.
3 Most of our scanty information on Ammonius comes from Damascius’ Life of Isidore
74, 76, 79 ap. Photium Bibliotheca, cod. 242 Henry, and excerpts from this same work
in the Suda (II 161,18ff., 412,22ff. Adler); the Life was reconstructed in German by R.
Asmus, Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros von Damaskios aus Damaskos, Leipzig
1911, and in the Greek by C. Zintzen, Damascii Vitae Isidori reliquiae, Hildesheim
1967. The evidence is summarized by L.G. Westerink, ‘The Alexandrian commentators
and the introductions to their commentaries’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed:
The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, London and Ithaca, N.Y. 1990, 325-48
at 325-7 and id., The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s ‘Phaedo’, vol. I Olympiodorus,
Verh. d. Koninkl. Nederlandse Akad. van Wetensch., Afd. Letterkunde, n.s. 92, 1976,
19 and 24.
4 cf. Damascius ap. Photium Bibliotheca, cod. 181, 127a.
2 Introduction
that he had a broad knowledge, particularly of astronomy and geo-
metry. Damascius also notes that Ammonius lectured primarily on
Aristotle,5 although Damascius heard him give a course on Plato,6
and Olympiodorus says that he attended the elderly Ammonius’
lectures on the Gorgias.7
The commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation is the only one of
Ammonius’ surviving works written out by himself. We hear of
monographic treatments of Phaedo 69D5-6 and of the hypothetical
syllogisms, but of no other commentaries written by Ammonius.8 His
lectures on other works of Aristotle, as well as on Porphyry’s Isagoge,
survive as they were written down by his students9 and published
under his name or theirs: under his own name are lectures on
Porphyry’s Isagoge, Aristotle’s Categories and Prior Analytics; under
Asclepius’ name are those on the Metaphysics; under Philoponus’
those on Categories, Prior and Posterior Analytics, Physics, On Gen-
eration and Corruption, On the Soul, and Generation of Animals.10
Such publications follow the format of the lectures (sunousiai) them-
selves, or as Proclus apparently called it, the ‘joint reading’ (su-
nanagnôsis)11 of a text by the master and his pupils, and they were
usually said to be ‘from the voice’ (apo phônês) of the master.12 Often
referred to as ‘skholia’ (‘school explanations of a text’),13 these lecture
notes retain their division into individual lectures (praxeis) and show
a particular structure within each lecture: an abbreviated lemma14
is followed by a general explanation of content (theôria) and a par-
ticular explanation of the text (lexis); their sentence-structure is
relatively uncomplicated. Ammonius’ commentary on the Categories
is a good example of this genre.
The commentary on On Interpretation is labelled not ‘skholia’, but
‘hupomnêma’, which could be translated ‘memory aid’ or ‘treatise’,
but should perhaps be rendered ‘commentary’, as it is the standard
Neoplatonic name for a commentary as written out by its author.15
Marinus reports in his Life of Proclus (c. 12):
5 Life of Isidore 79 = Zintzen 110.
6 ibid., fr. 128 = Zintzen 111,10-11.
7 in Gorg. 199,8-10.
8 Zeller, op. cit., 894 n. 1.
9 cf. M. Richard, ‘Apo Phônês’, Byzantion 20 (1950) 191-222, who speculates (192)
that Ammonius did not particularly enjoy writing.
10 The list appears in Westerink, ‘The Alexandrian commentators’, op. cit., 326.
11 cf. Proclus in Remp. I 5,3; Marinus Life of Proclus 10; Elias in Cat. 107,24ff.
12 cf. Richard, op. cit., 198-9.
13 For the terms and distinctions in these sentences, see E. Lamberz, ‘Form des
philosophischen Kommentars’, in J. Pépin and H.D. Saffrey (eds), Proclus: lecteur et
interprète des anciens, Actes du colloque international du CNRS, Paris (2-4 octobre
1985), Paris 1987, 1-20.
14 This was the original format, as Lamberz (op. cit., 7ff.) shows.
15 ibid., 2-4.
Introduction 3
Proclus read with Plutarch Aristotle’s On the Soul and Plato’s Phaedo.
And the great one assigned him also to take down what was said and,
playing on the youth’s ambition, he told him that once the notes
(skholia) had been supplemented (sumplêrôthenta) by him there would
be commentaries (hupomnêmata) on the Phaedo circulating under the
name of Proclus too.16
Apparently, if the lecture notes were revised and supplemented,
they could become hupomnêmata, otherwise they would remain
skholia. Ammonius’ commentary on On Interpretation does not pre-
sent the aspect of lecture notes: it is not divided into praxeis, there is
no standard pattern of general exegesis (theôria) followed by individ-
ual explanation (lexis), the language displays a high stylistic level,
and it is written in long and often quite complex sentences. Lamberz,
however, indicates that there are some points at which one can see
the lecture structure in Ammonius’ work.17 Now, Ammonius states
that his work is based on his memory of Proclus’ exegesis of On
Interpretation, and, if he is able to add to it, thanks should go to the
god of eloquence, Hermes (1,6-11). It therefore seems likely that
Ammonius has done something similar to what Plutarch instructed
Proclus to do: he has taken his notes from Proclus’ lectures, revised
and supplemented them, and published them as an hupomnêma
under his own name. This procedure might explain the curious fact
that Proclus’ name is mentioned only once more (181,30) by Am-
monius in this work, which is said to owe so much to him, and this
second reference too points to Proclus’ oral tuition.18 Thus a substan-
tial portion of Ammonius’ work represents the lectures of Proclus.
Ammonius’ main source for the supplementation of Proclus’ lec-
tures will have been the commentary of Porphyry, except, of course,
for chapter 14, which Porphyry held to be spurious and on which he
did not comment (252,8). Porphyry’s commentary was said by
Stephanus (in Int. 63,9) to have been ‘extensive’, and it seems to have
been the major source of Boethius’ commentary.19 There are many
16 It is possible that, in context, Marinus thinks of this as an arrangement specially
suited to the old age of Plutarch, which made lecturing ‘difficult’ for him. But it
nonetheless makes sense as a not unusual practice.
17 ibid., 18 and n. 69 refer to the following passages: 165,4; 243,22-4; 257,9-10;
272,10-11; I would add 98,5 and 120,13.
18 ‘(cid:125) but our professor and benefactor taught (paredidou) us rules which were very
technical, according to which it is possible to discover the consequent to a given
premiss.’
19 Boethius II 7.5-9: ‘(cid:125) the exposition of this book we have compiled, taking as much
as possible from Porphyry, although we have also taken from others, and translating
it into Latin. For he seems to us to excel as an expositor both in sharpness of mind and
in the disposition of his comments.’ cf. J. Shiel, ‘Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle’,
in Aristotle Transformed, op. cit., 349-72: at 356-61 Shiel postulates that Boethius’ sole
source was a manuscript of Aristotle heavily annotated with scholia whose main source
was Porphyry; S. Ebbesen, ‘Boethius as an Aristotelian commentator’, ibid., 373-91,
