PSEUDO-ELIAS AND THE ISAGOGE COMMENTARIES AGAIN

Author(s): H. J. Blumenthal
Source: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Neue Folge, 124. Bd., H. 2 (1981), pp. 188-192
Published by: J.D. Sauerländers Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41245044 .
Accessed: 30/03/2014 12:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

J.D. Sauerländers Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rheinisches
Museum für Philologie.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PSEUDO-ELIAS
AND THE ISAGOGE COMMENTARIES AGAIN1)

In a recentnote in the AmericanJournalof Philology2),

ProfessorM.Marcovichhas thrownfurther lighton the rela-
tions betweenthe commentaries on Porphyry'sIsagoge by
Ammonius,Elias, David, and the authorcalledby his editor,
L.G.Westerink,Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David)3). By an in-
structive
deployment ofthereasonsthesewriters giveforyoung
men's reluctanceto studythe ancients4),Marcovichconfirms
Westerink'sviewthattheauthorof Ps-ED is neitherElias nor
David5). The purposeof thisnote is to endorseMarcovich's
conclusionson thenon-identity ofPs-ED withtherealElias or
David6),a usefulsupplement to Westerink's
work,butto take
issuewithhisviewsabouttherelationofPs-ED to theothertwo
worksand someofthedifferences betweenthem.
Marcovicharguesthatthedifferent arrangementofreasons,
and thedifferentchoiceof examples,in thefourwriters,shows
thatwhileElias dependson Ammonius7), andDavid on bothof
Ps-ED, beingotherthaneitherElias or David,
theseauthorities,
i) AllreferencestotheAristotelian
commentators aretopageandline
oftheBerlinAcademy editionunlessotherwise specified.
2) Pseudo-bliasonHeraclitus,AJPh96,1975,31-34(hereatter Marco-
vich).
3) L.G.Westerink,Pseudo-Elias(Pseudo-David).Lectures on
Porphyry's Isagoge,Amsterdam 1967.Marcovich callsthisauthorAnonym-
ous: to avoidconfusion withtheAnonymous Prolegomena to Platonic
Philosophy, ed. Westerink,Amsterdam 1962,I referto bothauthorand
editionas Ps-ED.
4) Thisseemstobea loosegeneralization ofa point,often madeinthe
Categories commentaries, thatAristotle producedàaátpeiaas a testto
separate keen,or genuine, students fromtheidle,cf.Ammonius in Cat.7.
10-14,Philoponusin Cat. 6.22-26,Olympiodorus in Cat. 11.24-29.To
discover thereasonforAristotle'sàaáyeiaincertain workswaspartofthe
lecture programme, cf.Ammonius inCat.1.10,Simplicius inCat.3.26and
6.3off.
5) Ps-ED XVf.
6) Marcovich 33t.
7) The extentof Elias' dependenceon Olympiodorus elsewhere
suggests thatperhaps itwashewhomadethechanges whicharefirst attested
in Elias,or atleastsomeofthem.On EliasandOlympiodorus seeR.Van-
court,Les derniers Commentateurs Alexandrinsd'Aristote, Lille1941,6-7,
andWesterink, Anon.Prol.XX-XXII.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Pseudo-Eliasand the Isagoge Commentaries
again 189

dependson both of them,but on neitherexclusively8). While

MarcovichdoespointoutthatPs-ED improvised, whichwould
allow roomfordivergences, thelastitemin thissetoffiliations
is muchless convincing thantherest.It is basedon:
1) The appearancein bothDavid and Ps-ED of theamal-
gamationofdifficultiesarisingfromtheXêÇiç, whichAmmonius
and Elias splitinto thosearisingfrompfjxoçand thosefrom
âaá(peia>intoa singlegroupdue to àaáyeia; thissinglegroupis
arisingxará rò noaóvand xará
itselfsubdividedintodifficulties
TO TWlÓV.
2) The additionby Elias and Ps-ED, thoughnotDavid, of
Proclusto Ammonius'Galen as an exampleof lengthiness.
3) Ps-ED's transfer of Heraclitusfromtheheading'depth
of thought',wherehe appearsin Elias and David, to thatof
obscurity xará rò noióv.
Severalpointsherearedebatable.Withtheadditionofsome
furtherconsiderations we shall argue that Marcovich'stexts
could equallywell show thatDavid dependson Ps-ED rather
thanvice-versa, and,indeed,thatthefirstof thesealternatives is
morelikelythanthesecond.Anotherpossibility is thatthetwo
are independent, and merelyoffervariantsof the approach
exemplified by Elias. To takeMarcovich'spointsin turn:
1) David does not in factsplithis obscurity classification
intoxará rò noaóvand xará rò noióv,but giveshis two reasons
for unclarity arisingfromЩ1С as dià rò fifjxoç and dia rrjv
noiórrjra гщ Щесос.It can,ofcourse,be arguedthatPs-ED has
takenDavid's noiórrjç as a cue forintroducing the divisionby
categories. It is also possible,though less simple,thatPs-ED,
oftenmore precisethan David9), inventedit, while David,
finding ittooformal, returned tothejnfjxoç
usedbyAmmonius 10),
and substituted theless philosophicaldia rrjvnoiórrjra forthe
technical xará rò noióv.
2) Therearemoreeconomicalexplanations ofthefactsthan
Marcovich's, whichis thatDavid droppedProclus,whomElias
had addedto Ammonius'Galenas an exampleofverbosity, and
thatPs-DE thenre-instated him.Thus David mayhave simply
omittedProclusfromElias' pair while Ps-ED, followinghis
8) The passagesin questionare Ammon.in Isag. 38.14-17,Elias in
Isag. 41.30-42.5, David in Isag. 105.10-22,Ps-ED 28.26-9 = pp. 61f.
Westerink.Theymayalso be foundset out byMarcovich(withtheomis-
sion of some irrelevantmatter).To save space I do not printthemhere.
9) Cf.Ps-ED XVI. 10) Ellas uses то eçrjnAcopevov.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 H. J. Blumenthal

model,namelyElias and notDavid, dulykepthim.If thereis a

singleline of descentPs-ED would come betweenElias and
David: unexplained reversalofa change,a necessaryassumption
on thehypothesis thatPs-ED followedDavid,is alwayssuspect.
One shouldnot,however,dismissthe possibility thatProclus
occurredto morethanone writerindependently as an example
of thistrait:he was an important authority forall late philo-
sophical writers,and indubitably prolix11). forAmmonius,
As
hewastaughtbyProclus12), and respectforhis masterwillhave
been enough to preventhim fromadducingProclus as an
exampleof an undesirable characteristic13).
3) Heraclitusis an evenmoreobviousexampleofobscurity
due to 'depthof thought'thanGalen or Proclusforobscurity
due to length.Once includedunderthisheading,his removal
mustbe accountedfor.Marcovichdulyoffers anexplanation. He
suggeststhatPs-ED tranferred himto thecategory ofobscurity
arisingxará rò noiòvrrjçЩесос to complywithdistinctions he
hadalreadydrawn:cpvaioÀóyoi usegrandioselanguageto convey
simplethought,whilewritersengagedin Oeokoyia use thelow
(rcmeivóç)style(27.24-25).Heraclitus,quaphysikos, exemplifies
the pointthatcpvaioXoyia employsthe grand(áÔQÓç) style,and
accordingly thedeoXoyixol Xóyot aresubstitutedforHeraclitusas
an exampleof materialobscurity14). Now if David, who prob-
on
ably depends Elias15), followed Ps-ED chronologically, he
wouldnothavedoneanything verysurprisingin notfollowing
himin thisdetailsincethe obscurity of Heraclituswas a long-

11) Marinus,in praiseofProclus,tellsus thathe generallywrotesome

700 linesa day,Vita Procli 22.
12) Cf.DamasciusVita Isidořifr.127 Zintzen(= Suda, s.v. Aidesia).
13; ťor Ammonius attitudeto rroclus cr. in de lnterp.101.30г.
v i_ ■ a » ш m « «w^ « ¿m • ч ^ _ ^*

14) It is notclearwhose,or what,theveoAoyixoi Äoyoiare. Ihey could

be Aristotle's,ifPs-ED - incorrectly- understoodPorphyry's reference to
deeperenquiriesin the openinglinesof the Isagoge as beingto the Meta-
physics.Later,at 29.37, Ps-ED does say thatPlato in the Parmenidesand
Aristotlein the MetaphysicsůeoXoyovai, and quotes Porphyry, neqlfjç(se.
ticlqicuvrà nqœra xal ßa&vreQa. David, on the
Áoyixrjç)xaì vvv ÔLaXéryofxai,
otherhand,writesthatAristotle'sthoughtwas simplewhilehiswordswere
not,in Isag. 105.21f.
15) Cf.Marcovich34; so alreadyA.Busse, Davidi Prolegomenaet in
PorphyriiIsagogen, CAG XVIII. ii, 1904,VI, revisingan earlierview ex-
pressedin theprefaceto his editionof theIsagoge itself,CAG IV. i, 1887,
XLV. OtherwiseR.Beutler,Olympiodorus,Pauly-Wissowa XVIII, 1939,
220,and C. W. Müller,Die neuplatonischenAristoteleskommentatoren über
die Ursachender Pseudepigraphie, Rhein.Mus. n.F. 112, 1969, i24f.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Pseudo-Eliasand the Isagoge Commentariesagain 191

standingtradition.But yet again independencemay be the

correctexplanation.
We stillhave to considerthe adjectivesused to describe
Heraclitus'obscurity. Their distribution mayprovidefurther
evidencein favourof theview thatPs-ED dependedon Elias
butnoton David. One couldpointto thefactthatPs-ED uses
only oxoteivóç.Elias too uses oxoreivoç, but also has ßa&oc,
though not as a directdescription(see below),whileDavid has
ßa&vconly.If axoreivóçis any more thana stockepithet, its
distributionlinksPs-ED withElias and notwithDavid. At the
sametimethepresenceofßa6oc/-vc in David, and itsabsencein
Ps-ED, further weakensthe case forPs-ED's dependenceon
David. But one shouldallow the possibility thatthereis no
significancein the useof axoreivóç,
already attested byStrabo16),
byanyoneindividual. The caseofßaOvcis a littlemorecomplex.
Elias uses it onlyin thetag ßa&eocôeïo&aixoXv/ißrjrov, which
maybe foundin Diogenes Laertiusin the formArjMovnvòç
David too givesthetag,(in Elias' form)
oelauaixoA.vftßrjTov1'7).
and,presumably on thatbasis,uses ßadvc as a simpleadjective
forHeraclituswhichDavid had not done,a procedurecharac-
ofimprecise
teristic use ofsources.Herethereis no evidencefor
Ps-ED dependingon David, nor,forthatmatter,forthe re-
verserelationship.
A further reasonwhyPs-ED did not use the wordßadvc
forHeraclitusmaylie in morepreciseattention to thetextof
Porphyry. In Isagoge1.8-9,whichPs-ED citesat theendofthe
sectionwe are considering (28.60),Porphyry sayshe willavoid
та ßauvregaСцтгцлата:given Ps-ED's contentionthat the
thoughts of(pvaioXóyoi werenotdeep,thatwouldmaketheword
unsuitable forHeraclitus.This samepassageof Porphyry sug-
gests a furtherpoint on Elias' introduction of Heraclitus.
Marcovichthinksitwas suggested to himbyAmmonius'words
ßa&ocrœvvorjjLiarœv18). CertainlyElias repeatstheseverywords,
but we shouldnot forgetthatPorphyry himselfused ßa&ic of
Сг]тщата,and also thesuperlative a fewlinesbelow,bothrefer-
ringto Aristotle, in theverytextwhichall fourare expound-
ing19).Heraclitus, moreover,mighthave come to mindmore
16) Strabo XIV. 1.25 (= DKe 22 A 3a). axoreivóçis applied to his.
worksas earlyas DemetriusEloc. 192 (= DKe 22 A 4).
17; JD..UII.22, IA.12: in thehrstor thesepassagesDiogenes attribu-
tes it to Socrates.
18) Marcovich32. 19) Isag. 1.3-14.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 H. J. Blumenthal

readilybecausehe was sometimesmentionedin the opening

sectionsoftheCategoriescommentaries in connection withthe
riverimage20).
possibleto explainwhyElias adds
It is also, incidentally,
Hippocratesto Aristotleas an exampleof âaácpeia.It is simply
thatElias, perhapsfollowingOlympiodorus in this too, was
interested in medicine21). David's substitution of one Aristo-
genes may be put down to an attemptat originality22).
To conclude.Marcovichhas clearlystrengthened the case
for Elias' dependenceon Ammonius,eitherdirectly, or, as I
suggest,mediately23), and David's on Elias. His conclusions
abouttheplaceofPs-ED in relationto Elias and David arenot
equallyconvincing.It seemsmorelikelythatPs-ED depends
onlyon Elias, whileDavid dependsin parton PsED, perhaps
morelikelystillthatthelasttwowereindependent ofeachother.
Thus on thebasisofthisblockof evidence,and we mustthank
Marcovichfordrawingour attention to it,we mustneverthe
less retainWesterink's cautiousviewthata commonsourcefor
David and Ps-ED wouldoffer thesimplestexplanation, butthat
matters may have been more complicated24).Ps-ED's priority,
ifnotperhapsa complication, shouldnow be addedas a serious
possibility, in thesensethathe,as wellas Elias, couldhavebeen
a sourceforDavid25).If we had Olympiodorus on theIsagoge,
a courseon whichall threeprobablydrew,thingsmightwellbe
clearer.
University of Liverpool H. J.Blumenthal
20) So at Philop. in Cat. 2.15 t., and, unnamed, in the Ammonius
version, 2.25 f.
21; Lr. the LALr indices to Ulympiodorus, esp. in ivieteor., ana
Westerink,Philosophy and medicine in late antiquity,Janus 51, 1964, 172F.
22) Marcovich, 32 and n. 7, identifieshim with a Ihasian physician
listedin the Suda (ed. Adler,no. 3910). Busse, in app., simplyrefersto the
Suda, withoutspecifying the Aristogenes.M. Wellmann,Aristogenes(5),
Pauly-WissowaII. i, 1895,932,thinksthisThasianis thesameas a Helleni-
sticdoctorfromCnidus(Adler'sno. 3911) who attendedAntigonusGona-
tas. Though a physicianwould makea suitablesubstitute forHippocrates,
thereis no otherreasonforidentifying David's Aristogeneswitheitherof
theseindividualsseparately, or withbothconjointly.The words attributed
to himby David xal f¡ovvnóvovxal èvaeaay/névov, io 5.16f., look like a dis-
memberediambicverse- the xai s should perhapsnot be in the citation.
A v.l. APIHTOTENEIA could conceal some other name: the context
forbidsthatit shouldbe a mistakeforAPIETOTEAEIA.
23) See n. 7 above. 24; FS-bJJAVI.
25) westerink,ibid., admittedthe possibilitythat Fs-bJJwas not
laterthanDavid.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:32:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions