School of Athens

Theory and History of Ontology

by Raul Corazzon - e-mail: raul.corazzon[at]formalontology.it

For an overview see the Index of the Pages, the SITE MAP or the Alphabetical Index of the Philosophers: A-F - G-O - P-Z; You can also download this page as Ontology in PDF format

Table of Contemporary Ontologists Ontology. Table of Ontologists (click on the image to see the PDF file)

Ancient Greek Commentators on Aristotle's Categories

 

Index of the Section: "History of the Theories of Categories"

 

INTRODUCTION

“The five introductions to the study of Aristotle by Ammonius, Olympiodorus, Elias, Philoponus and Simplicius give us a very good idea of the organization of the neoplatonic exegesis. The elaborated plan, and the long list of predecessors which Simplicius gives, make it certain that the five extant prolegomena are the result of a long development. Part of the material used in the prolegomena is old, especially the facts presented in the chapter on the names of the different philosophic schools (see Diels, Doxographi p. 246). But the scholastic approach and outlook is so apparent even in the earliest of these prolegomena, that of Ammonius, that we cannot go too far back. Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrian and Proclus were great individualists, compared to Ammonius and his disciples, and their prolegomena have a different character. Simplicius says, CIAG [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca] VIII, p. 3.3, that he has freely used and transcribed Iamblichus' commentary, and it is possible that Iamblichus added prolegomena of the later type, but on the whole I am more inclined to regard Ammonius as the real originator of this scholastic type of introduction. Littig and, more recently, Moraux are certainly wrong in assuming that the elaborate neoplatonic classification of Aristotle's writings goes back to Andronicus. Firstly, there is no ancient evidence at all for this hypothesis, and that in itself ought to be enough; secondly, the prolegomena are throughout coloured by neoplatonic conceptions and doctrines; thirdly, they are intimately connected with a type of scholastic and professional study of Aristotle which cannot have existed earlier than in the fourth or fifth century; they are also so closely connected with Porphyry's famous Isagoge that, as Praechter says, the whole course could be entitled "Erklarung von Porphyrius' Eisagoge mit Einleitung in die Philosophie". Generally speaking, the highly speculative character of this classification is incompatible with what we know of Andronicus and his period. We may compare the Alexandrian and Hellenistic approach in the extracts preserved by Diogenes III 65.

The edition of Aristotle's works used in the neoplatonic school in Athens about 500 A. D. was the same as that we possess, i. e., in principle, Andronicus' edition. It was introduced by the Categories, preceded by a short biography of Aristotle, late copies of which we possess in the Vitae Marciana and vulgata. This biography, which included a list of Aristotle's writings, was an epitome of Ptolemy's Vita.”

From: Ingemar Düring - Aristotle in the ancient biographical tradition. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell 1957, pp. 444-445.

 

 

CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE ANCIENT COMMENTARIES TO ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES

Eight Neoplatonic commentaries are extant: seven in Greek by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Simplicius, Pseudo-Elias (David), published in the series of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca by the Berlin Academy (1882-1909, 23 volumes; this edition is reprinted by Walter de Gruyter) and one in Latin by Boethius.

 

  1. Porphyry. Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1887.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: IV/1.

     

  2. Dexippus. Dexippi In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1887.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: IV/2.

     

  3. Boethius. Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1887.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: IV/1

     

  4. Ammonius. In Aristotelis Categorias commentarius. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1895.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: IV/4

     

  5. Philoponus. Philoponi (olim Ammonii) In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1898.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: XIII/1

     

  6. Olympiodorus. Olympiodori Prolegomena et In Categorias commentarium. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1902.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: XII/1

     

  7. Simplicius. Simplicii In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium. Edited by Kalbfleisch Karl. Berlin: Reimer 1907.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: XXI

     

  8. Pseudo-Elias (David). Eliae In Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias commentaria. Edited by Busse Adolf. Berlin: Reimer 1900.
    Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca: IV/4

     

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For a general bibliography on the Greek Commentators on Aristotle see: The Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle's Metaphysics

 

  1. Anton John Peter, "Ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of homonyma," Journal of the History of Philosophy 7: 1-18 (1969).
    "The main purpose of this paper is to offer an exposition and a critical examination of the ancient interpretations of Aristotle's doctrine of homonyma. A circumlocution of what Aristotle means
    by homonyma things is given in Categories, ch. 1, I a. The ancient interpretations with which we are concerned in this paper are to be found in the extant commentaries on this treatise. Evidently, more commentaries had been written on the Categories than the vicissitudes of time allowed to survive, but we have only those of the following writers: Porphyrius (c. 233-303), Dexippus (fl. c. 350), Ammonius (fl. c. 485), Philoponus (c. 490-530), Olympiodorus (fl. c. 535), Simplicius (fl. c. 533), Elias (ft. c. 550). One' might add here the relevant writings of John Damascene (675-749), Photius (820-91), and Michael Psellus (1018-79), which are useful paraphrases rather than full commentaries. For that reason, the interpretations they support are not discussed in this paper.
    The main body of this paper is given to a discussion of the interpretations which the ancient commentators offered and to an analysis of the assumptions which underlie them. It can be stated here in anticipation of what follows that the commentators often attached to Aristotle's meaning of homonyma aspects that were quite foreign to his views, and that by doing so these commentators were taking extensive liberties with the text at hand. As we hope to show, the commentators brought into their discussions of this particular portion of the Categories issues and
    views that were far more relevant to their own ontologies and logical theories than to Aristotle's doctrines. In order to show how this is the case, we must first give a summary of what we believe our text permits us to say about the meaning of homonyma, as given in the opening chapter of the Categories.1 Suffice it to add at this point that the interpretations of the doctrine of homonyma with which we are concerned here are only those that are discussed exclusively in the relevant commentaries on this work." pp. 1-2

     

  2. Anton John Peter. Aristotle's theory of Categories and post-classical ontologies. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Aristotle. Thessaloniki August 7-14, 1978. Athens: Ministry of Culture and Sciences 1981. pp. 214-220
    Reprinted in: J. P. Anton - Categories and experience. Essays on Aristotelian themes - Oakdale, N.Y., Dowling College Press, 1996, pp. 203-213.

     

  3. Arpe Curt. Das ti en einai bei Aristoteles. Hamburg: Walter de Gruyter 1938.
    Reprint:New York, Arno Press, 1976 with Logische Regeln der Platonischen Schule in der Aristotelischen Topik by Ernst Hambruch (1904).

     

  4. Asztalos Monika, "Boethius as a transmitter of Greek logic to the Latin West: the Categories," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 95: 367-407 (1993).

     

  5. Asztalos Monika. Boethius on the Categories. In Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs. Actes du colloque international de la Fondation Singer-Polignac Paris, 8-12 juin 1999. Edited by Galonnier Alain. Louvain: Éditions Peeters 2003. pp. 195-205

     

  6. Aubenque Pierre. Plotin et Dexippe, exégètes des Catégories d'Aristote. In Aristotelica. Mélanges offerts à Marcel de Corte. Bruxelles: Ousia 1985. pp. 7-40
    Réimprimé dans: P. Aubenque - Problèmes aristotéliciens. I. Philosophie théorique - Paris, Vrin 2009 pp. 281-304

     

  7. Baltussen Han. Philosopy and exegesis in Simplicius. The methodology of a commentator. London: Duckworth 2008.

     

  8. Barnes Jonathan. Les catégories et les Catégories. In Les Catégories et leur histoire. Edited by Bruun Otto and Corti Lorenzo. Paris: Vrin 2005. pp. 11-80

     

  9. Bärthlein Karl. Zur Kategorienforschung in der Antike. In Kategorie und Kategorialität. Historisch-systematische Untersuchungen zum Begriff der Kategorie im philosophischen Denken. Festschrift für Klaus Hartmann zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Koch Dietmar and Bort Klaus. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann 1990. pp. 13-48

     

  10. Blumenthal Henry, "Pseudo-Elias and the Isagoge Commentaries again," Rheinisches Museum 124: 188-192 (1981).

     

  11. Bodéüs Richard, "Le texte grec des Catégories d'Aristote et le témoignage du Commentaire de Porphyre," Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 8: 121-141 (1997).

     

  12. Bodéüs Richard, "Les interlocuteurs fictifs dans le commentaire de Porphyre aux Catégories d'Aristote. Une mise au point," Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 85: 669-678 (2001).
    "Contrairement à l'opinion reçue, les questions que soulève Porphyre dans son Commentaire aux Catégories d'Aristote ne sont pas posées par un maître, mais par un disciple en quête du savoir. Les indices probants qui le suggèrent sont nombreux et, consultant les manuscrits, on peut même, dans un passage précis (p. 74-75), découvrir la bévue éditoriale qui, dans le chef de Busse, est à l'origine du malentendu. La rectification qui s'impose permet de comparer Porphyre avec le Commentaire de Dexippe et de tirer une conclusion sur l'apprentissage de la philosophie dans les premières écoles néoplatoniciennes."

     

  13. Cardullo Loredana, "La Noera Theoria di Giamblico, come chiave di lettura delle Categorie di Aristotele: alcuni esempi," Syllecta Classica 8: 79-94 (1997).

     

  14. Chiesa Curzio. Porphyre et le problème de la substance des Catégories. In Les Catégories et leur histoire. Edited by Bruun Otto and Corti Lorenzo. Paris: Vrin 2005. pp. 81-101

     

  15. Conti Alessandro Domenico, "La teoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle Categorie di Aristotele," Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia 38: 259-283 (1983).

     

  16. Courtine Jean-François. Inventio analogiae. Métaphysique et ontothéologie. Paris : Vrin 2005.

     

  17. De Haas Frans A.J. John Philoponus' new definition of prime matter. Aspects of his background in Neoplatonism and the ancient commentary tradition. Leiden : Brill 1997.
    Chpater four: Second objection: a category mistake pp. 165-250.

     

  18. De Haas Frans A.J. John Philoponus' new definiton of Prime Matter. Leiden: Brill 1997.

     

  19. de Libera Alain, "Entre Aristote et Plotin: l' Isagoge de Porphyre et le problème des catégories," Cahiers de la Revue de Théolgie et de Philosophie 20: 7-27 (1999).
    Métaphysiques Médiévales. Études en l'Honneur d'André de Muralt - Éditées par Curzio Chiesa et Léo Freuler.

     

  20. de Libera Alain. L'onto-théo-logique de Boèce: doctrine des catégoreies et théorie de la predication dans le De Trinitate. In Les Catégories et leur histoire. Edited by Bruun Otto and Corti Lorenzo. Paris: Vrin 2005. pp. 175-222

     

  21. Dillon John, "Iamblichus' Noera Theoria of Aristotle's Categories," Syllecta Classica 8: 65-77 (1997).
    "An examination of Simplicius In Cat. 2, 5-9ff ; 3, 10-17 ; 13, 4ff ; and 13, 13-16 shows that Iamblichus applied his allegorical technique of interpretation to the Categories, which he read as a coherent description of the Neoplatonic intelligible world. Two important features of his noera theoria were the search for ontological rather than merely logical explanations, and discreteness and continuity as manifestations of the power of the One."

     

  22. Ebbesen Sten. The contribution of the Greek Commentators on the Organon to the formation of Western Scholasticism. In Proceedings of the world Congress on Aristotle. Thessaloniki August 7-14, 1978 (Vol. 1 of four). Athens: Publication of the Ministry of Culture and Science 1981. pp. 183-186

     

  23. Ebbesen Sten. Boethius as an Aristotelian Commentator. In Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung. (Vol. II). Edited by Wiesner Jürgen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 266-311
    Reprinted in: R. Sorabji (ed.) - Aristotle transformed - Lodn, Duckworth, 1990, pp- 373-391.

     

  24. Ellis John, "Alexander's defense of Aristotle's categories," Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy 39: 69-89 (1994).

     

  25. Evangeliou Christos, "Aristotle's doctrine of predicables and Porphyry's Isagoge," Journal of the History of Philosophy 23: 15-34 (1985).
    "Porphyry has recently been criticized for "muddling" Aristotle's doctrine of predicables by adding species to the list. I argue that a careful comparison of the two lists shows that they differ more profoundly than Porphyry's critics suspect, and that these modern critics, unlike the ancient commentators, have been mislead by the title of Isagoge which they interpret as "Introduction" to Topics or Categories exclusively. it is shown that this is not the case."

     

  26. Evangeliou Christos. Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry. Leiden: Brill 1988.

     

  27. Flannery Kevin, "The synonymy of homonyms," Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 81: 268-289 (1999).
    "Simplicius reports in his commentary on Aristotle's Categories that Claudius Nicostratus and a certain Lucius argued that there is a problem with Aristotle's definition of homonyms in the first chapter of the Categories. If homonyms fall under that definition, they, qua homonyms, are not homonyms at all but synonyms, since they share the name 'homonym' and also the definition of homonyms. The author of the present article discusses a number of ancient and modern attempts to resolve this paradox, arguing that none of them is fully satisfactory. He proposes, rather, the elimination of the words 'of being' from lines 1a2 and 1a4, a solution that finds support in some of the oldest evidence regarding manuscripts that exists in Aristotelian studies."

     

  28. Gaskin Richard, "Simplicius on the meaning of sentences: a commentary on 'In Cat. 396,30 - 397,28'," Phronesis.A Journal for Ancient Philosophy 43: 42-62 (1998).
    "At Categories 12b5-16 Aristotle appears to regard the referents of declarative sentences, such as 'Socrates is sitting,' as what later writers were to call 'complexe significabilia', i.e., items such as 'that Socrates is sitting'. Simplicius's discussion of this passage in his commentary on the Categories clearly shows the influence of Stoic philosophy of language; but, if we follow the text printed by Kalbfleisch, Simplicius's commentary is seen to be a muddle of Stoic and Aristotelian elements, neither properly understood. It is possible, however, by making a crucial emendation. On that line Simplicius would be adopting the view that a declarative sentence refers to a thought in the first instance and a 'complexe significabile' in the second instance. This view is plausibly the upshot of combining the Categories text with the first chapter of De Interpretatione."

     

  29. Gerson Lloyd P. Aristotle and other Platonists. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2005.
    See in particular Chapter 3: The Categories of Reality pp. 76-100.

     

  30. Gottschalk Hans B. The earliest Aristotelian commentators. In Aristotle transformed. The Ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Sorabji Richard. London: Duckworth 1990. pp. 55-81

     

  31. Hadot Ilsetraut. Les introductions aux Commentaires exégetiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens. In Les règles de l'interprétation. Edited by Tardieu Michel. Cerf: 1987. pp. 99-122
    "Le present article décrit les différents types de schémas introductifs contenus dans les commentaires des néoplatoniciens tardifs sur les oeuvres d'Aristote et de Platon, en essayant de determiner leur signification exégétique ainsi que l'origine de plusieurs d'entre eux. Il apparait que les deux schémas en dix points qui introduisent respectivement à la philosophie d'Aristote et à celle de Platon ont de toute vraisemblance eté codifiés par Proclus au V siècle de notre ère, tandis que certains points des schémas en six points introduisant aux différents traités d'Aristote ou aux divers dialogues de Platon apparaissent déjà au III siècle chez Origène qui a dû s'inspirer des commentaires platoniciens de son temps."

     

  32. Hadot Ilsetraut. The role of the Commentaries on Aristotle in the teaching of philosophy according to the prefaces of the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. In Aristotle and the later tradition. Edited by Blumenthal Henry and Robinson Howard. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1991. pp. 175-189
    Oxford studies in ancient philosophy. Supplementary volume

     

  33. Hadot Ilsetraut, "Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique neo-Platonicien: les Préfaces des Commentaires sur les Catégories," Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 124: 407-426 (1992).
    "Cet article répresente une contribution de plus à ma critique générale des thèses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'école neo-Platonicienne dite "d'Alexandrie" se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite "d'Athènes", mais encore et surtout par ses doctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers l'oeuvre d'Aristote. La comparison entre elles des Prefaces des cinq commentaires neo-Platoniciens des Catégories d'Aristote, dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, a l'école d'Alexandrie, fait apparaítre la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie neo-Platonicienne qui était enseignée à Athènes avec celle qui était enseignée à Alexandrie: toutes deux interprètent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la même perspective neo-Platonicienne et la même volonté d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote."

     

  34. Hadot Pierre, "Un fragment du commentaire perdu de Boèce sur les Catégories d'Aristote dans le codex Bernensis 363," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 26: 11-27 (1959).
    Reprinted in: P. Hadot - Plotin, Porphyre. Études néoplatoniciennes - Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1999, pp. 383-410.

     

  35. Hadot Pierre. The harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle according to Porphyry . In Aristotle transformed. The ancient commentators and their influence . Edited by Sorabji Richard. London: Duckworth 1974. pp. 125-140
    English translation of: L'armonie des philosophies de Plotin et d'Aristote selon Porphyre dans le commentaire de Dexippe sur les Catégories - in: Atti del Convegno Internazionale su tema: Plotino ed il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente - Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1974, pp. 31-47.

     

  36. Hoffmann Philippe. Les catégories pou et pote chez Aristote et Simplicius. In Concepts et Catégories dans la pensée antique. Edited by Aubenque Pierre. Paris: Vrin 1980. pp. 217-245

     

  37. Hoffmann Philippe, "Sens et dénomination. Homonymie, analogie, métaphore selon le Commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories d'Aristote," Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.Section des Sciences Religieuses 93: 343-356 (1985).

     

  38. Hoffmann Philippe. Catégories et langage selon Simplicius. La question du skopos du traité Aristotelicien des Catégories. In Simplicius. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie. Actes du Colloque international de Paris (28 septembre -1 octobre 1985). Edited by Hadot Ilsetraut. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 61-90

     

  39. Hoffmann Philippe, "Le Prologue du Commentaire de Porphyre par questions et réponses sur les Catégories d'Aristote," Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.Section des Sciences Religieuses 95: 295-305 (1987).

     

  40. Hoffmann Philippe, "Recherches sur les Introductions néoplatoniciennes aux Catégories d'Aristote," Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.Section des Sciences Religieuses 96: 272-281 (1988).

     

  41. Hoffmann Philippe, "Le Commentaire de Dexippe sur les Catégories d'Aristote," Annuaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.Section des Sciences Religieuses 100: 299-305 (1992).

     

  42. Hoffmann Philippe. Les catégories aristotéliciennes pote et pou d'après le Commentaire de Simplicius. Méthode d'exégèse et aspects doctrinaux. In Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Paris: Vrin 2000. pp. 355-376
    Actes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999)

     

  43. Karamanolis George. Porphyry: the first Platonist commentator on Aristotle. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries (Vol. One). Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London 2004. pp. 97-120

     

  44. Karamanolis George. Plato and Aristotle in agreement?: Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. New York: Oxford University Press 2006.
    See in particular Chapters 6. Plotinus pp. 216-242 and 7. Porphyry pp. 243-330.

     

  45. Kustas George L. The Commentators on Aristotle's Categories and on Porphyry's Isagoge. In Studies in Byzantine rhetoric. Edited by Kustas George L. Thessaloniki: Studies in Byzantine rhetoric 1973. pp. 101-126

     

  46. Luna Concetta. La relation chez Simplicius. In Simplicius, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie. Edited by Hadot Ilsetraut. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 113-147

     

  47. Mahé Jean-Pierre. David l'Invincible dans la tradition arménienne. In Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories. Fascicule 1. Edited by Hadot Ilsetraut. Leiden: Brill 1990. pp. 189-207

     

  48. Marenbon John. Medieval Latin Commentaries and Glosses on Aristotelian logical texts, before c. 1150 A.D. In Glosses and commentaries on Aristotelian logical texts: The Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin traditions. Edited by Burnett Charles. London: The Warburg Institute, University of London 1993. pp. 77-127
    Reprinted as Chapter II in: John Marenbon - Aristotelian logic, Platonism, and the context of early medieval philosophy in the West - Aldershot - Ashgate, 2000.

     

  49. Marenbon John. Glosses and commentaries on the Categories and De interpretatione before Abelard. In Dialektik und Rhetorik im früheren und hohen Mittelalter. Rezeption, Überlieferung und gesellschaftliche Wirkung antiker Gelehrsamkeit vornehmlich im 9. und 12. Jahrhundert. Edited by Fried Johannes. München: Oldenbourg 1997. pp. 21-49
    Reprinted as Chapter IX in: John Marenbon - Aristotelian logic, Platonism, and the context of early medieval philosophy in the West - Aldershot - Ashgate, 2000.

     

  50. Merlan Philip, "Beitrage zur Geschichte des antiken Platonismus: I. Zur Erklarung der dem Aristoteles zugeschriebenen Kategorienschrift," Philologus.Zeitschrift für das klassische Altertum 89: 35-53 (1934).

     

  51. Minio-Paluello Lorenzo, "The genuine text of Boethius' translation of Aristotle's Categories," Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1: 151-177 (1942).
    Reprinted in: L. Minio-Paluello - Opuscola: the Latin Aristotle - Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972, pp. 1-27.

     

  52. Minio-Paluello Lorenzo, "The text of the Categories: the Latin tradition," Classical Quarterly 39: 63-74 (1945).
    Reprinted in: L. Minio-Paluello - Opuscola: the Latin Aristotle - Amsterdam, Adolf M. Hakkert, 1972, pp. 28-39.

     

  53. Morison Benjamin. Les Catégories d'Aristote comme introduction è la logique. In Les Catégories et leur histoire. Edited by Bruun Otto and Corti Lorenzo. Paris: Vrin 2005. pp. 103-119

     

  54. Narbonne Jean-Marc, "Définition et description: le problème de la saisie des genres premiers et des individus chez Aristote dans l'exégèse de Simplicius," Archives de Philosophie 50: 529-554 (1987).

     

  55. Narcy Michel, "L'homonymie entre Aristote et ses Commentateurs néoplatoniciens," Les Études Philosophiques 35: 35-52 (1981).

     

  56. Reinhardt Tobias. Andronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon on Aristotle's Categories. In Greek and Roman philosophy 100 BC - 200 AD. Vol. II. Edited by Sharples Robert W. and Sorabji Richard. London: Institute of Classical Studies 2007. pp. 513-529

     

  57. Sellars John. The Aristotelian Commentators: a bibliographical guide. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries (Vol. One). Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London 2004. pp. 239-268

     

  58. Sharples Robert W., "Habent sua fata libelli: Aristotle's Categories in the first Century BC," Acta Antiqua.Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48: 273-287 (2008).
    "A re-examination of the question why, in the revival of interest, in the first century BC in Aristotle's esoteric works, as opposed to his doctrines, the work Categories played so large a part. The answers suggested are that the work aroused interest just because it did not easily fit into the standard Hellenistic divisions of philosophy and their usual agendas, and that, more than Aristotle's other works with the possible exception of the Metaphysics, it revealed aspects of Aristotle's thought that had become unfamiliar during the Hellenistic period."

     

  59. Shiel James, "Boethius Commentaries on Aristotle," Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 4: 217-244 (1958).
    Reprinted in: Richard Sorabji (ed.) - Aristotle transformed. The Ancient commentators and their influence - London, Duckworth, 1990 and in: Manfred Fuhrmann and Joachim Gruber (eds.) - Boethius - Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 pp. 155-181 with a Postscript (1983) pp. 182-183.

     

  60. Shiel James. The Greek copy of Porphyrios' Isagoge used by Boethius. In Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux zum 65 Geburtstag gewidmet - Band 2: Kommentierung, Uberlieferung, Nachleben. Edited by Wiesner Jürgen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 312-340

     

  61. Solmsen Friedrich, "Boethius and the history of the Organon," American Journal of Philology 65: 69-74 (1944).
    Reprinted in: F. Solmsen - Kleine Schriften II. Hildesheim,. Olms, 1967 pp. 38-43 and in: Manfred Fuhrmann and Joachim Gruber (eds.) Boethius -- Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984 pp. 127-132

     

  62. Stump Eleonore. Categories and predicables. In Boethius's In Ciceronis Topica. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1988. pp. 244-255
    Translated with notes and an introduction by Eleonore Stump

     

  63. Szlezak Thomas Alexander. Pseudo-Archytas uber die Kategorien. Texte zur griechischen Aristotelesexegese. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1972.
    Edition, translation an commentary.

     

  64. Taormina Daniela, "Giamblico contro Plotino e Porfirio: il dibattito sull' atto e sul movimento (apud Simplicio, In categorias 301, 20-308, 10)," Syllecta Classica 8: 95-112 (1997).
    "On Iamblichus' exposition of the categories poiein kai paschein and his new theory about act, action, and entelechy based on his criticism of Porphyry's treatment of active and passive movement, and Plotinus' assimilation of act and movement."

     

  65. Thiel Rainer. Aristoteles Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004.

     

  66. Tuominen Miira. The Ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle. Stocksfield: Acumen 2009.
    Contents: Acknowledgements; 1. Introduction; 2. Epistemology; 3. Science and logic; 4. Physics; 5. Psychology: perception and intellect; 6. Metaphysics; 7. Ethics; Chronology; Glossary of names; Guide to further reading; Bibliography; Index

     

  67. Vamvoukakis Nicolas. Les catégories aristotéliciennes d'action et de passion vues par Simplicius. In Concepts et Catégories dans la pensée antique. Edited by Aubenque Pierre. Paris: Vrin 1980. pp. 253-269

     

  68. Verbeke Gérard, "Le commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégories," Revue Philosophique de Louvain 70: 279-282 (1972).

     

LINKS

Falcon, Andrea, "Commentators on Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

The Aristotelian Commentators: a bibliographical guide by John Sellars (PDF)

Chronology of Aristotelian Commentators Prior to Aquinas by Erik Norvelle (PDF)

 

RELATED PAGES

 

ontology: valid xhtml 1.0 strict

Last modified: Tuesday, March 09, 2010