Classics Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
by
John Sellars
  • LAST REVIEWED: 27 January 2023
  • LAST MODIFIED: 30 June 2014
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195389661-0158

Introduction

In the 1st century BCE, the previously unknown lecture notes that we now know as Aristotle’s works were rediscovered, and from then until the end of antiquity they received close attention from philosophers. Both committed followers of Aristotle and Platonists who held that Aristotle was broadly in agreement with Plato wrote commentaries on his works. For the later Platonists in particular, writing commentaries on Aristotle (as well as Plato) became an established way of doing philosophy. Although some commentaries are lost and others survive only in fragments, a substantial number of often lengthy commentaries survive, filling twenty-three large volumes in the standard collection of the Greek texts. To these we can add the Latin commentaries of Boethius and more recent discoveries both in Greek and in Arabic translation. The commentaries are valuable for a number of reasons: for their interpretations of the fine details of Aristotle’s texts, for the philosophical contributions they make to the topics they discuss, and for the information they preserve about earlier philosophers whose works are otherwise lost.

General Overviews

For a brief overview aimed at readers completely new to the subject, see Kupreeva 2010. Falcon 2013 offers an overview aimed at academic readers. For a longer, thematically arranged introduction, see Tuominen 2009. More advanced readers might turn directly to Sorabji 1990, a seminal collection of essays with a helpful introduction by Sorabji, along with the more recent collection of essays Adamson, et al. 2004. The latter contains Fazzo 2004, a helpful overview that also discusses recent trends in the scholarship. Hoffmann 2006 offers a rich introduction to the practices of the later Neoplatonic commentators.

  • Adamson, Peter, Han Baltussen, and M. W. F. Stone, eds. 2004. Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. 2 vols. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 83.1–2. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA rich collection of papers arising out of a conference in honor of Richard Sorabji. The first volume deals with the ancient commentators.

    Find this resource:

  • Falcon, Andrea. 2013. Commentators on Aristotle. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief overview of the entire subject, covering origins of the commentary tradition, the Peripatetic and Neoplatonic traditions, and Boethius.

    Find this resource:

  • Fazzo, Silvia. 2004. Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Adamson, Han Baltussen, and M. W. F. Stone, 1–19. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA helpful survey that among other things examines recent trends in scholarship on the ancient commentators.

    Find this resource:

  • Hoffmann, Philippe. 2006. What was commentary in late antiquity? The example of the Neoplatonic commentators. In A companion to ancient philosophy. Edited by Mary Louise Gill and Pierre Pellegrin, 597–622. Oxford: Blackwell.

    DOI: 10.1111/b.9780631210610.2006.00036.xSave Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDiscussing Neoplatonic commentaries on both Aristotle and Plato, this essay is an excellent introduction to the pedagogic context in which the commentaries were written.

    Find this resource:

  • Kupreeva, Inna. 2010. Aristotle: Commentators on Aristotle. In The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Greece and Rome. Vol. 1. Edited by Michael Gagarin, 252–265. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780195170726.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA concise and helpful overview aimed at the nonspecialist.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard, ed. 1990. Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA seminal collection of papers (reprinting and sometimes translating into English important studies previously published) that is regularly cited as the standard point of reference for those looking for a comprehensive overview. A revised second edition is currently in preparation.

    Find this resource:

  • Tuominen, Miira. 2009. The ancient commentators on Plato and Aristotle. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA book-length introduction that, despite the title, focuses mainly on the commentaries on Aristotle. Suitable for undergraduates.

    Find this resource:

Texts and Translations

The standard edition of Greek commentaries on Aristotle is Diels 1882–1909. The majority of these have now been translated into English in Sorabji 1987–. Sorabji 2004 is a valuable sourcebook of extracts from these translations, arranged thematically and with extensive commentary. Medieval and Renaissance translations of the Greek commentaries into Latin are gathered together in Verbeke 1957– and Lohr 1990–. The Latin commentaries of Boethius are conveniently gathered together in Migne 1891, but are partially superseded by Meiser 1877–1880. Further texts are noted under Recent Discoveries.

  • Diels, Hermann, ed. 1882–1909. Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca. 23 vols. Berlin: Reimer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThe standard collection of the Greek commentaries, now published by Walter de Gruyter.

    Find this resource:

  • Lohr, Charles, ed. 1990–. Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca: Versiones latinae temporis resuscitatarum litterarum. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNFacsimile reprints of early printed editions of Greek commentaries translated into Latin.

    Find this resource:

  • Meiser, C., ed. 1877–1880. Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii commentarii in librum Aristotelis Περι ερμηνειας. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA critical edition of Boethius’s two commentaries on Aristotle’s On Interpretation.

    Find this resource:

  • Migne, J.-P., ed. 1891. Manlii Severini Boetii opera omnia. Patrologiae Latinae 64. Paris: Garnier Fratres.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains the Latin texts of Boethius’s commentary on the Categories and his two commentaries on the De interpretatione (cf. Meiser 1877–1880), as well as a number of related logical works and his translations of Aristotle into Latin.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard, ed. 1987–. Ancient commentators on Aristotle. 100 vols. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNSeries of translations into English, filling 100 volumes at the end of 2012, with further volumes planned. Originally copublished with Cornell Univ. Press, the series is now published by Bloomsbury under the Bristol Classical Press imprint. A full list of volumes in the series can be found online.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. 3 vols. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA comprehensive introductory sourcebook with commentary, drawing on the translations in Sorabji 1987– and arranged thematically over three volumes: Vol. 1 Psychology (with Ethics and Religion), Vol. 2 Physics, Vol. 3 Logic and Metaphysics. The best place for those new to the subject to start.

    Find this resource:

  • Verbeke, G., ed. 1957–. Corpus latinum commentariorum in Aristotelem graecorum. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNModern critical editions of medieval Latin translations of Greek commentaries, primarily those of William of Moerbeke.

    Find this resource:

Recent Discoveries

In recent years a number of previously lost texts by Aristotelian commentators have been recovered. Some of these have been found in Arabic sources; see for example Gannagé 2005. Especially noteworthy is the work of Marwan Rashed, some of whose recent finds are published in Rashed 2007 and Rashed 2011. A commentary on Aristotle’s Categories has also been recovered from the famous Archimedes palimpsest and is edited with a translation in Chiaradonna, et al. 2013.

  • Chiaradonna, Riccardo, Marwan Rashed, and David Sedley. 2013. A rediscovered Categories commentary. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 44:129–194.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn edition with translation of a fragment of a commentary on Aristotle’s Categories found in the famous Archimedes palimpsest. Initially attributed to Alexander, the authors suggest that it comes from Porphyry’s lost “long commentary” on the Categories, the Ad Gedalium.

    Find this resource:

  • Gannagé, Emma. 2005. Alexander of Aphrodisias, On Aristotle On Coming-to-Be and Perishing 2.2–5. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNFragments of Alexander’s commentary recovered from Arabic sources, here translated into English with an extensive introduction and commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Rashed, Marwan. 2007. L’héritage aristotélicien: Textes inédits de l’Antiquité. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains a number of recently discovered texts by Alexander and Philoponus, as well as fragments of a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens.

    Find this resource:

  • Rashed, Marwan. 2011. Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote (livres IV–VIII). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110216462Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn edition of Byzantine scholia that record fragments of Alexander’s lost commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, with translations into French and commentary.

    Find this resource:

Bibliographies

Goulet 1989 offers a brief bibliographic guide to the ancient texts, supplemented by Chase 2003. The bibliography in Sorabji 1990 lists studies up to that date; it is supplemented by Sellars 2004. Lohr 2000 offers a guide to the Renaissance translations of the Greek commentaries into Latin. More detailed bibliographies on the work of particular individuals are noted in the Individual Commentators section.

  • Chase, Michael. 2003. Les commentaires grecs et byzantins. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques: Supplément. Edited by Richard Goulet, 113–121. Paris: CNRS.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA supplement to Goulet 1989, with much information on editions and translations published between 1989 and 2003.

    Find this resource:

  • Goulet, Richard. 1989. L’oeuvre d’Aristote. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques I. Edited by Richard Goulet, 424–442. Paris: CNRS.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThis article contains, pp. 437–441, an overview of the various ancient and Byzantine commentaries on Aristotle written in Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • Lohr, Charles H. 2000. Renaissance Latin translations of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle. In Humanism and early modern philosophy. Edited by Jill Kraye and M. W. F. Stone, 24–40. London: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA guide to and discussion of the various Renaissance translations of the Greek commentators into Latin.

    Find this resource:

  • Sellars, John. 2004. The Aristotelian commentators: A bibliographical guide. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Adamson, Han Baltussen, and M. W. F. Stone, 239–268. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA structured guide to the literature on the ancient commentators up to 2004, conceived as a supplement to the bibliography in Sorabji 1990. Available online.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard, ed. 1990. Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains a substantial bibliography (pp. 485–524) of work on the commentators up to 1990. Available online.

    Find this resource:

Origins of the Commentary Tradition

The origins of the commentary tradition in the 1st century BCE have attracted much discussion. The point of departure for the modern debate is Moraux 1973. An overview of the topic can be found in Gottschalk 1990 (drawing on Gottschalk 1987), which follows the traditional view that foundational for the commentary tradition was the preparation of an edition of Aristotle’s rediscovered works by Andronicus of Rhodes. For a skeptical discussion of Andronicus’s role, see Barnes 1997. The issue is also discussed in Hatzimichali 2013, which addresses Andronicus and the rise of text-based philosophy. Karamanolis 2006 explores Platonic attempts to reconcile Aristotle with Plato and, although not primarily on the commentary tradition, has much to say about the reception of Aristotle from the 1st century BCE onwards.

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 1997. Roman Aristotle. In Philosophia togata II: Plato and Aristotle in Rome. Edited by Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin, 1–69. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNRejects the view that the revival of interest in Aristotle and the beginnings of the commentary tradition in the 1st century BCE depended on a new edition of Aristotle’s works by Andronicus of Rhodes.

    Find this resource:

  • Gottschalk, Hans B. 1987. Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century AD. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 1079–1174. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA substantial study containing much on the origins of the Aristotelian commentary tradition.

    Find this resource:

  • Gottschalk, Hans B. 1990. The earliest Aristotelian commentators. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 55–81. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA discussion of the origins of the commentary tradition and Andronicus’s edition of Aristotle’s works, drawing on material first published in Gottschalk 1987.

    Find this resource:

  • Hatzimichali, Myrto. 2013. The texts of Plato and Aristotle in the first century BC. In Aristotle, Plato and Pythagoreanism in the first century BC. Edited by Malcolm Schofield, 1–27. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn up-to-date discussion of the rise of text-based philosophy and the role of Andronicus in the formation of an Aristotelian canon of texts.

    Find this resource:

  • Karamanolis, George E. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Clarendon.

    DOI: 10.1093/0199264562.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA rich study of the reception of Aristotle among Platonists. Although not focused on the commentary tradition, this fleshes out the wider intellectual context.

    Find this resource:

  • Moraux, Paul. 1973. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen Vol. 1, Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh. v. Chr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110827743Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA classic study examining the origins of the commentary tradition. Includes discussion of Andronicus of Rhodes.

    Find this resource:

Individual Commentators

The subsections included here cover the principal ancient Aristotelian commentators whose works survive. This section is arranged in a loosely chronological order, with Peripatetics grouped first, then Neoplatonists. Dates follow those in The Oxford Classical Dictionary.

Aspasius

The Peripatetic commentator Aspasius (b. c. 100–d. c. 150 CE), author of the earliest surviving commentary on Aristotle, is translated into English in Konstan 2006 and discussed in the important study Moraux 1984. Another scholarly overview can be found in Becchi 1994. Goulet 1994 describes Aspasius’s lost works and the evidence for them. The best place for English readers to start is the collection of papers in Alberti and Sharples 1999 and, within that volume, Barnes 1999. This volume also contains a bibliography of further work on Aspasius up to 1999 (pp. 191–194). For an example of more recent work on Aspasius, see Natali 2007.

  • Alberti, Antonina, and R. W. Sharples, eds. 1999. Aspasius: The earliest extant commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110810196Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA valuable collection of essays, mostly in English, that forms the most sustained study of Aspasius to date.

    Find this resource:

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 1999. An introduction to Aspasius. In Aspasius: The earliest extant commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics. Edited by Antonina Alberti and R. W. Sharples, 1–50. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110810196Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn incisive introduction to Aspasius, his life and works, and his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. It is reprinted in Barnes’s Method and Metaphysics: Essays in Ancient Philosophy I (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011), pp. 212–261.

    Find this resource:

  • Becchi, Francesco. 1994. Aspasio, commentatore di Aristotele. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 7, Systematische Themen; Indirekte Überlieferungen; Allgemeines; Nachträge. Edited by W. Haase, 5365–5396. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA scholarly overview of Aspasius in Italian; requires knowledge of Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • Goulet, Richard. 1994. Aspasios. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques I. Edited by Richard Goulet, 635–636. Paris: CNRS.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA short entry that records the evidence for Aspasius’s lost works.

    Find this resource:

  • Konstan, David. 2006. Aspasius, On Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1–4, 7–8. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn annotated translation of Aspasius’s commentary into English.

    Find this resource:

  • Moraux, Paul. 1984. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Vol. 2, Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh. n. Chr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110873580Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNIncludes a substantial discussion of Aspasius (pp. 226–293) by a leading scholar of the Peripatetic tradition.

    Find this resource:

  • Natali, Carlo. 2007. Aspasius on Nicomachean Ethics 7: An ancient example of “higher criticism”? Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 33:347–367.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Aspasius on Aristotle on pleasure.

    Find this resource:

Alexander of Aphrodisias

For an introduction to Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. c. 200 CE), the most prolific of the Peripatetic commentators, see Sharples 1987, which includes a full list of Alexander’s works on pp. 1182–1199. A briefer overview can be found in Frede 2012. The fullest study to date is Moraux 2001, containing an extensive bibliography on pp. 621–650. For an important recent study, see Rashed 2007. On his commentary on the Prior Analytics, see Flannery 1995. Alexander wrote a series of shorter treatises beyond his commentaries that are also important for understanding his work as a whole; two of these are translated and discussed in Todd 1976 and Sharples 1983. Genequand 2001 contains Alexander’s De principiis, lost in Greek but surviving in an Arabic translation.

  • Flannery, Kevin L. 1995. Ways into the logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Alexander’s own contributions to logic in both his commentary on the Prior Analytics and his lost On Mixed Premises.

    Find this resource:

  • Frede, Dorothea. 2012. Alexander of Aphrodisias. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief overview with a helpful bibliography.

    Find this resource:

  • Genequand, Charles. 2001. Alexander of Aphrodisias on the cosmos. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThis volume contains the Arabic text of Alexander’s De principiis, along with a facing English translation, an introduction, and a commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Moraux, Paul. 2001. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Vol. 3, Alexander von Aphrodisias. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThe most substantial study of Alexander to date, primarily in German except for two supplementary chapters on fate and ethics in English by R. W. Sharples.

    Find this resource:

  • Rashed, Marwan. 2007. Essentialisme: Alexandre d’Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110901306Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA major study of Alexander’s philosophy in French, focused on the concept of form (eidos), drawing on recently rediscovered texts as well as the extant commentaries. Note the review article by Inna Kupreeva in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 38 (2010): 211–249.

    Find this resource:

  • Sharples, R. W. 1983. Alexander of Aphrodisias on fate. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAlexander’s De fato translated into English with an introduction and commentary; also includes a reprint of the Greek text on which the translation is based.

    Find this resource:

  • Sharples, R. W. 1987. Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and innovation. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 1176–1243. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA scholarly overview of all of Alexander’s works, commentaries, and shorter works, both extant and lost. Concludes with a substantial bibliography of work up to 1987.

    Find this resource:

  • Todd, Robert B. 1976. Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic physics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains text and translation of Alexander’s De mixtione, along with introductory essays and commentary.

    Find this resource:

Themistius

Themistius (b. c. 317–d. c. 388 CE), the last Peripatetic commentator whose works survive, is introduced in Kupreeva 2010. There is an earlier introduction in Blumenthal 1990. Of his short paraphrase commentaries, that on the De anima has been most influential; it is translated in Todd 1996. Todd has also translated Themistius’s commentary on the Physics in the same series. For his commentary on the Metaphysics, see Brague 1999. Recent studies worth noting include Guldentops 2001 and Henry 2003. For further bibliography, with a focus on the later reception of his works, see Todd 2003.

  • Blumenthal, Henry J. 1990. Themistius: The last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle? In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 113–123. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn introduction to Themistius focusing on his relationship with Neoplatonism.

    Find this resource:

  • Brague, Rémi. 1999. Thémistius: Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d’Aristote (livre Lambda). Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA translation into French (from Hebrew and Arabic) of part of Themistius’s paraphrase commentary on the Metaphysics, along with an introduction and notes.

    Find this resource:

  • Guldentops, Guy. 2001. Themistius on evil. Phronesis 46:189–208.

    DOI: 10.1163/156852801753733277Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDiscusses Themistius’s response to the problem of evil in both his paraphrase commentaries and his orations, and defends his status as a Peripatetic.

    Find this resource:

  • Henry, Devin. 2003. Themistius and spontaneous generation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 24:183–207.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA critical discussion of Themistius on the role of forms in Aristotle’s biology and metaphysics.

    Find this resource:

  • Kupreeva, Inna. 2010. Themistius. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 397–416. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn accessible introduction to Themistius’s life, works, and thought.

    Find this resource:

  • Todd, Robert B. 1996. Themistius, On Aristotle On the Soul. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn annotated translation of this highly influential paraphrase commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Todd, Robert B. 2003. Themistius. In Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin translations and commentaries. Vol. 8. Edited by Virginia Brown, 57–102. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of the Latin reception of Themistius’s works, rich in information about the reception of his work in general and with extensive bibliography.

    Find this resource:

Porphyry

The literature on Porphyry (b. 234–d. c. 305 CE), the first of the later Platonic commentators on Aristotle, is considerable. For an up-to-date introduction, see Smith 2010 and, for one more focused on his commentary activity, Karamanolis 2004. For Porphyry’s attempt to assimilate Aristotle to Platonism, see Karamanolis 2006, pp. 243–330. There is an important discussion in Strange 1987 and a longer discussion in Evangeliou 1988. Although not a commentary, Porphyry’s Isagoge is closely tied to his commentary activity; it is translated in Barnes 2003, with valuable commentary. There is a good bibliography of further work in Barnes 2003 (pp. 372–384), and a survey of mid-20th-century work in Smith 1987. The fragments of his otherwise lost commentaries on Aristotle are gathered together in Smith 1993.

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 2003. Porphyry, Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA translation of Porphyry’s Isagoge with an introduction and a substantial commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Evangeliou, Christos. 1988. Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed and advanced study of Porphyry’s interpretation of the Categories in relation to Plotinus’s criticisms of Aristotle.

    Find this resource:

  • Karamanolis, George E.. 2004. Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. Vol. 1. Edited by Peter Adamson, Han Baltussen, and M. W. F. Stone, 97–102. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNArgues for the claim that Porphyry was the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle, offering a helpful introduction to his commentary practice along the way.

    Find this resource:

  • Karamanolis, George E. 2006. Plato and Aristotle in agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Clarendon.

    DOI: 10.1093/0199264562.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA wide-ranging study of the Platonic appropriation of Aristotle, containing a substantial chapter on Porphyry.

    Find this resource:

  • Smith, Andrew. 1987. Porphyrian studies since 1913. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 717–773. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA scholarly survey of 20th-century work on Porphyry, recommended for readers already familiar with the central themes of Porphyry’s work.

    Find this resource:

  • Smith, Andrew. 1993. Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta. Stuttgart: Teubner.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNCritical edition of the fragments of Porphyry’s otherwise lost works, including his commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories (the longer To Gedaleus), De interpretatione, and Physics.

    Find this resource:

  • Smith, Andrew. 2010. Porphyry and his school. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 1. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 325–357. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA wide-ranging introduction to Porphyry’s thought as a whole by a leading authority.

    Find this resource:

  • Strange, Steven K. 1987. Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic interpretation of the “Categories.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 955–974. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA helpful discussion of Porphyry’s response to Plotinus’s criticisms of Aristotle’s Categories. Extracts are reprinted in the introduction to Strange’s translation of Porphyry’s On Aristotle Categories (London: Duckworth, 1992).

    Find this resource:

Syrianus

Syrianus (fl. c. 431 CE), author of a partially extant commentary on the Metaphysics as well as a number of lost commentaries, is introduced in Longo 2010. For a longer study, see Longo 2005. For the fragments of his lost commentaries on the Organon and the Physics, see Cardullo 1995 and Cardullo 2000, both of which contain extensive bibliographies. On his attitude toward Aristotle, see Saffrey 1990. On his place within the Metaphysics commentary tradition, see Luna 2000 with D’Ancona 2000.

  • Cardullo, R. Loredana. 1995. Siriano, esegeta di Aristotele. Vol. 1, Frammenti e testimonianze dei commentari all’Organon. Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains the evidence for Syrianus’s otherwise lost logical commentaries in Greek and Latin with a facing Italian translation, along with an introduction and commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Cardullo, R. Loredana. 2000. Siriano, esegeta di Aristotele. Vol. 2, Frammenti e testimonianze del commentario alla Fisica. Catania, Italy: CUECM.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNContains the evidence for Syrianus’s otherwise lost commentary on the Physics in Greek with a facing Italian translation, along with an introduction and commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • D’Ancona, Cristina. 2000. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote, II: Antécédents et postérité. In Le commentaire: Entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 311–327. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA study in French examining Syrianus’s adoption of Alexander’s model of writing commentary; requires knowledge of Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • Longo, Angela. 2005. Siriano e i principi della scienza. Naples, Italy: Bibliopolis.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Syrianus, focusing on Book Gamma of the Metaphysics commentary, with an extended preface in English by Jonathan Barnes.

    Find this resource:

  • Longo, Angela. 2010. Syrianus. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 616–629. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief and accessible introduction to Syrianus’s life, works, and central ideas.

    Find this resource:

  • Luna, Concetta. 2000. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote, I: Syrianus entre Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Asclépius. In Le commentaire: Entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 301–309. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed textual study in French examining Syrianus’s use of Alexander and his use by Asclepius; requires knowledge of Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • Saffrey, H. D. 1990. How did Syrianus regard Aristotle? In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 173–179. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief but illuminating essay on Syrianus’s attitude toward Aristotle.

    Find this resource:

Ammonius

Ammonius (b. c. 440–d. c. 520 CE), head of a school of philosophy in Alexandria, is introduced in Blank 2011 and, more fully, in Blank 2010. The claim that his school differed from the Athenian school of Neoplatonism is made in Praechter 1910, and his thesis is critically discussed in Verrycken 1990 and Sorabji 2005. Ammonius’s commentary on De interpretatione 9 (“the sea battle”) is thoroughly examined in Seel 2001.

  • Blank, David L. 2010. Ammonius Hermeiou and his school. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 654–666. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn accessible overview of Ammonius’s life and thought.

    Find this resource:

  • Blank, David L. 2011. Ammonius. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief yet highly informative overview of Ammonius with a helpful bibliography of primary and secondary texts.

    Find this resource:

  • Praechter, Karl. 1910. Richtungen und Schulen im Neuplatonismus. In Genethliakon: Carl Robert zum 8. März 1910. Presented by Graeca Halensis, 103–156. Berlin: Weidmann.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNArgues that Ammonius diverged from Athenian Neoplatonism, creating a distinct Alexandrian version of Neoplatonism. Praechter’s thesis was widely accepted for a while but is less so now.

    Find this resource:

  • Seel, Gerhard, ed. 2001. Ammonius and the seabattle: Texts, commentary, and essays. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110814569Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed examination of Ammonius’s commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione 9, with the Greek text, a facing English translation, and essays by Seel and Mario Mignucci.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2005. Divine names and sordid deals in Ammonius’ Alexandria. In The philosopher and society in late antquity. Edited by Andrew Smith, 203–213. Swansea, UK: Classical Press of Wales.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA discussion of Ammonius continuing the discussion in Praechter 1910 and Verrycken 1990 about differences between the schools in Athens and Alexandria.

    Find this resource:

  • Verrycken, Koenraad. 1990. The metaphysics of Ammonius son of Hermeias. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 199–231. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA discussion of Ammonius’s metaphysics in relation to Karl Praechter’s thesis that there was a significant difference between Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism in late antiquity.

    Find this resource:

Simplicius

The classic introduction to Simplicius (b. c. 480–d. c. 560 CE) is Hadot 1990. Also noteworthy, and more recent, is Baltussen 2010. Hadot 1987 is an important collection of essays. Baltussen 2008 examines Simplicius’s motivations for writing commentaries and his use of earlier sources. On the Categories commentary, see Hadot 1990. On the Physics commentary, see Croese 1998, and for the On the Heavens commentary, see Bowen 2013. Beyond his commentaries on Aristotle, Simplicius also wrote a commentary on the Handbook of the Stoic Epictetus, which can be found in Hadot 1996 and is translated in Sorabji 1987 (cited under Texts and Translations).

  • Baltussen, Han. 2008. Philosophy and exegesis in Simplicius: The methodology of a commentator. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA monograph examining the purpose of Simplicius’s commentaries, paying special attention to his use of previous texts. A specialist book for those already familiar with the subject.

    Find this resource:

  • Baltussen, Han. 2010. Simplicius. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 711–732. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA helpful and up-to-date overview covering all aspects of this work, ideal for those new to Simplicius.

    Find this resource:

  • Bowen, Alan C. 2013. Simplicius on the planets and their motions: In defense of a heresy. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn advanced study of Simplicius’s commentary on On the Heavens that includes a translation of Book 2, chapters 10–12, with commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Croese, Irma. 1998. Simplicius on continuous and instantaneous change: Neoplatonic elements in Simplicius’ interpretation of Aristotelian physics. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Zeno Institute of Philosophy.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDoctoral thesis focusing on Simplicius’s Neoplatonic account of the nature of change in his Physics commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Hadot, Ilsetraut, ed. 1987. Simplicius, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110862041Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn important collection of advanced essays (in French, English, and German) based on a conference held in 1985.

    Find this resource:

  • Hadot, Ilsetraut. 1990. The life and work of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic sources. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 275–303. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA classic introduction to Simplicius, primarily biographical, first published in French in Hadot 1987.

    Find this resource:

  • Hadot, Ilsetraut, ed. 1990–. Simplicius, Commentaire sur les Catégories. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA multivolume translation of Simplicius’s commentary on the Categories into French, with a detailed commentary. Fascicles I and III were published by Brill in 1990. A further volume was published in Paris by Les Belles Lettres in 2001.

    Find this resource:

  • Hadot, Ilsetraut. 1996. Simplicius, Commentaire sur le Manuel d’Épictète. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA critical edition of Simplicius’s commentary on the Handbook of Epictetus, with a substantial introduction in French.

    Find this resource:

Priscian

Priscian of Lydia, a contemporary of Simplicius, is introduced in Haas 2010. There has been much debate about whether Priscian is the author of a commentary on the De anima traditionally attributed to Simplicius. The case for Priscian’s authorship was made by Bossier and Steel 1972 and re-presented in English in Steel 1997. The case for retaining the attribution to Simplicius has been made in Hadot 2002, with a response in Steel 2013. Note also Perkams 2005. Accepting the attribution to Priscian, Steel 1978 offers a discussion of his thought within the wider context of late Platonic psychology. Further discussion of the content of the commentary can be found in Blumenthal 1982.

  • Blumenthal, H. J. 1982. The psychology of (?) Simplicius’ Commentary on the De anima. In Soul and the structure of being in late Neoplatonism. Edited by H. J. Blumenthal and A. C. Lloyd, 73–95. Liverpool, UK: Liverpool Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn advanced study of the De anima commentary, in part responding to the authorship debate started in Bossier and Steel 1972.

    Find this resource:

  • Bossier, F., and C. Steel. 1972. Priscianus Lydus en de In de anima van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius. Tijdschrift voor filosofie 34:761–822.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThe article in which Priscian is proposed as the author of the De anima commentary traditionally attributed to Simplicius. The central claims are repeated in English in Steel 1997.

    Find this resource:

  • Haas, F. A. J. de. 2010. Priscian of Lydia and Pseudo-Simplicius on the soul. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 756–763. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief but informative introduction to Priscian, ideal for readers new to the subject.

    Find this resource:

  • Hadot, Ilsetraut. 2002. Simplicius or Priscianus? On the author of the Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima (CAG XI): A methodological survey. Mnemosyne 55:159–199.

    DOI: 10.1163/15685250252989724Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDefends the traditional attribution of the De anima commentary to Simplicius.

    Find this resource:

  • Perkams, M. 2005. Priscian of Lydia, commentator on the De anima in the tradition of Iamblichus. Mnemosyne 58:510–530.

    DOI: 10.1163/156852505774483280Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDefends the attribution of the De anima commentary to Priscian.

    Find this resource:

  • Steel, Carlos 1978. The changing self: A study on the soul in later Neoplatonism: Iamblichus, Damascius, and Priscianus. Brussels: Paleis der Academiën.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDiscusses Priscian (see especially 121–141) within the wider context of Neoplatonic psychology.

    Find this resource:

  • Steel, Carlos. 1997. Introduction. In Priscian On Theophrastus on Sense-Perception with “Simplicius” On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5–12. Translated by Pamela Huby and Carlos Steel, 105–140. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNOffers an account in English of the arguments first put forward in Bossier and Steel 1972 in favor of Priscian’s authorship of the De anima commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Steel, Carlos. 2013. Introduction. In Simplicius, On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13. Translated by Carlos Steel, 1–39. London: Bristol Classical Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAddresses the question of authorship, responding to Hadot 2002, and also has much to say about the final section of the commentary translated in this volume.

    Find this resource:

Philoponus

The commentaries of John Philoponus (b. c. 490–d. c. 570 CE) came to the attention of English-speaking scholars with the publication of a collection of essays edited by Richard Sorabji in 1987, recently reissued in an expanded second edition, Sorabji 2010. For a brief overview, see Wildberg 2007. For a fuller introduction, see Verrycken 2010; note also Verrycken 1990. Longer studies in English worthy of note include Wildberg 1988 and Haas 1997. For references to further literature, see the bibliography in Sorabji 2010, pp. 271–293.

  • Haas, Frans A. J. de. 1997. John Philoponus’ new definition of prime matter. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn important study of Philoponus’s physics, examining both his commentaries and his Against Proclus.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard, ed. 2010. Philoponus and the rejection of Aristotelian science. 2d ed. London: Institute of Classical Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn expanded second edition of an important collection of essays first published in 1987 addressing a wide range of topics in Philoponus’s thought, with the second edition adding information about the excavation of classrooms in Alexandria where Philoponus may have taught and a review of research since 1987.

    Find this resource:

  • Verrycken, Koenraad. 1990. The development of Philoponus’ thought and its chronology. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 233–274. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn overview of Philoponus’s philosophical career and the dating of his commentaries.

    Find this resource:

  • Verrycken, Koenraad. 2010. John Philoponus. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 733–755. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA recent accessible introduction to Philoponus, distinguishing between his earlier and later works.

    Find this resource:

  • Wildberg, Christian. 1988. John Philoponus’ criticism of Aristotle’s theory of aether. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Philoponus’ arguments against Aristotle in the fragments of his otherwise lost Against Aristotle.

    Find this resource:

  • Wildberg, Christian. 2007. John Philoponus. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA brief overview covering both the philosophical and theological works, with a helpful chronological list of Philoponus’s extant works.

    Find this resource:

Boethius

For a general introduction to Boethius, see Marenbon 2003, along with the collection of papers in Marenbon 2009. A briefer overview can be found in Magee 2010. For studies focused on his activity as a translator and commentator on Aristotle’s logical works, see Barnes 1981, Ebbesen 1990, Shiel 1990, and Ebbesen 2009. More advanced studies include Suto 2012. For further references to literature on Boethius, see the bibliography in Marenbon 2009, pp. 311–339.

  • Barnes, Jonathan. 1981. Boethius and the study of logic. In Boethius: His life, thought and influence. Edited by Margaret Gibson, 73–89. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA lively and accessible introduction to Boethius’s work on Aristotle’s logical treatises.

    Find this resource:

  • Ebbesen, Sten. 1990. Boethius as an Aristotelian commentator. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 373–391. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA rich overview of Boethius’s project to translate and comment on Aristotle; advanced but still accessible.

    Find this resource:

  • Ebbesen, Sten. 2009. The Aristotelian commentator. In The Cambridge companion to Boethius. Edited by John Marenbon, 34–55. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1017/CCOL9780521872669Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of the form of and sources for Boethius’s commentaries on Aristotle.

    Find this resource:

  • Magee, John. 2010. Boethius. In The Cambridge history of philosophy in late antiquity. Vol. 2. Edited by Lloyd P. Gerson, 788–812. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA concise and accessible introduction to Boethius, discussing his Aristotelian commentaries in the context of his other logical works and wider thought.

    Find this resource:

  • Marenbon, John. 2003. Boethius. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1093/0195134079.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA comprehensive yet accessible introduction to Boethius, with a chapter devoted to his Aristotelian translations and commentaries, pp. 17–42.

    Find this resource:

  • Marenbon, John, ed. 2009. The Cambridge companion to Boethius. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1017/CCOL9780521872669Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA rich collection of accessible and up-to-date essays on Boethius.

    Find this resource:

  • Shiel, James. 1990. Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 349–372. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA discussion of Boethius’s commentaries and other logical works aimed at specialists.

    Find this resource:

  • Suto, Taki. 2012. Boethius on mind, grammar and logic: A study of Boethius’ commentaries on Peri hermeneias. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Boethius’s two commentaries on De interpretatione, with an up-to-date bibliography.

    Find this resource:

Logic

The best place to begin is Sorabji 2004, containing the central texts in translation with extensive commentary. Neoplatonic responses to Aristotle’s Categories are discussed in Strange 1987. The logical works of Alexander and Boethius are discussed in Flannery 1995 and Suto 2012 respectively. For a sense of recent work on logic in the ancient commentators, see the papers in Haas, et al. 2010.

  • Flannery, Kevin L. 1995. Ways into the logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Alexander’s own contributions to logic in both his commentary on the Prior Analytics and his lost On Mixed Premises.

    Find this resource:

  • Haas, Frans A. J. da, Mariska Leunissen, and Marije Martijn, eds. 2010. Interpreting Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics in late antiquity and beyond. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA recent collection of essays examining ancient commentaries on one of Aristotle’s central logical works, with papers discussing Alexander, Syrianus, Philoponus, Eustratius, and a range of topics.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. Vol. 3, Logic and Metaphysics. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThis anthology of texts in translation with commentary introduces and discusses a wide range of logic topics. No knowledge of Greek or Latin required.

    Find this resource:

  • Strange, Steven K. 1987. Plotinus, Porphyry, and the Neoplatonic interpretation of the ‘Categories.’ In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 955–974. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA helpful discussion of Porphyry’s response to Plotinus’s criticisms of Aristotle’s Categories. Extracts are reprinted in the introduction to Strange’s translation of Porphyry’s On Aristotle Categories (London: Duckworth, 1992).

    Find this resource:

  • Suto, Taki. 2012. Boethius on mind, grammar and logic: A study of Boethius’ commentaries on Peri hermeneias. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of Boethius’s two commentaries on De interpretatione, with an up-to-date bibliography.

    Find this resource:

Physics

A classic early study of physics in late antiquity is Sambursky 1962. Sorabji 2004 contains the central texts with commentary and further references. Golitsis 2008 offers a detailed examination of the two major Physics commentaries by Simplicius and Philoponus, which are also examined separately in Croese 1998 and Haas 1997 respectively. Rashed 2011 reports the evidence for Alexander’s otherwise lost commentary on the Physics.

  • Croese, Irma. 1998. Simplicius on continuous and instantaneous change: Neoplatonic elements in Simplicius’ interpretation of Aristotelian physics. PhD diss., Zeno Institute of Philosophy.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDoctoral thesis focusing on Simplicius’s Neoplatonic account of the nature of change in his Physics commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Golitsis, Pantelis. 2008. Les commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d’Aristote. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110208078Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNDetailed study in French of the Physics commentaries by Simplicius and Philoponus, approaching them within the wider context of the commentary tradition.

    Find this resource:

  • Haas, Frans A. J. de. 1997. John Philoponus’ new definition of prime matter. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn important study of Philoponus’s physics, examining both his commentaries and his Against Proclus.

    Find this resource:

  • Rashed, Marwan. 2011. Alexandre d’Aphrodise, commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote (livres IV–VIII). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    DOI: 10.1515/9783110216462Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn edition of Byzantine scholia that record fragments of Alexander’s lost commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, with translations into French and commentary.

    Find this resource:

  • Sambursky, S. 1962. The physical world of late antiquity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNOne of the few extended studies of physics in late ancient philosophy before the more recent revival of interest in the commentators.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. Vol. 2, Physics. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAnthology of texts in translation with commentary that offers comprehensive treatment of physics in the ancient commentators. No knowledge of Greek or Latin required.

    Find this resource:

Psychology

The commentary tradition on Aristotle’s De anima is especially rich. For a comprehensive introduction, see Blumenthal 1996, drawing on his numerous previous publications. More advanced readers should also consult Perkams 2008. As well as the commentaries themselves, there survive a number of important related texts such as Alexander’s De anima and De intellectu. The interpretations of Aristotle’s account of the intellect in the De anima by Alexander and Themistius went on to exert a major influence throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance; see Schroeder and Todd 1990 for translations of the texts, with the studies in Hamelin 1953 and Kessler 2011. Material on a wide range of psychological topics is translated and discussed in Sorabji 2004.

  • Blumenthal, H. J. 1996. Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: Interpretations of the De anima. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA comprehensive account of the De anima commentaries, their authors, and the central topics of interpretation.

    Find this resource:

  • Hamelin, O. 1953. La théorie de l’intellect d’après Aristote et ses commentateurs. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA short study in French of interpretations of Aristotle’s theory of intellect from Alexander to Aquinas.

    Find this resource:

  • Kessler, Eckhard. 2011. Alexander of Aphrodisias and his doctrine of the soul: 1400 years of lasting significance. Early Science and Medicine 16:1–93.

    DOI: 10.1163/157338211X548859Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study of the reception of Alexander’s psychology, from the end of antiquity to the Renaissance.

    Find this resource:

  • Perkams, Matthias. 2008. Selbstbewusstsein in der Spätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles’ De anima. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn advanced study in German of the Neoplatonic commentaries on the De anima by Philoponus, Priscian (Ps.-Simplicius), and Stephanus.

    Find this resource:

  • Schroeder, Frederic M., and Robert B. Todd. 1990. Two Greek Aristotelian commentators on the intellect: The De intellectu attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius’ paraphrase of Aristotle, De anima 3.4–8. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNTranslations of these two important texts that went on to influence the reception of Aristotle’s psychology throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance, with a helpful introduction.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. Vol. 1, Psychology. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAnthology of texts with commentary covering a wide range of issues in psychology. No knowledge of Greek or Latin required.

    Find this resource:

Metaphysics

Metaphysical topics are discussed in Sorabji 2004, with a selection of texts. The pair of advanced studies Luna 2000 and D’Ancona 2000 together offer a valuable discussion of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The same topic is explored at greater length in Luna 2001. Bonelli 2001 focuses on Alexander. Verbeke 1981 offers an older but accessible overview focused on how Aristotle’s treatise was read.

  • Bonelli, Maddalena. 2001. Alessandro di Afrodisia e la metafisica come scienza dimostrativa. Naples, Italy: Bibliopolis.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study in Italian of Alexander’s commentary on the Metaphysics; requires knowledge of Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • D’Ancona, Cristina. 2000. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote, II: Antécédents et postérité. In Le commentaire: Entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 311–327. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study in French focusing on Syrianus’s debts to Alexander; requires knowledge of Greek. To be read alongside Luna 2000.

    Find this resource:

  • Luna, Concetta. 2000. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d’Aristote, I: Syrianus entre Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Asclépius. In Le commentaire: Entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé, 301–309. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed study in French looking at the relationships between the Metaphysics commentaries of Alexander, Syrianus, and Asclepius; requires knowledge of Greek. To be read alongside D’Ancona 2000.

    Find this resource:

  • Luna, Concetta. 2001. Trois etudes sur la tradition des commentaries anciens à la Métaphysique d’Aristote. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA detailed textual study in French of the relations between the commentaries on the Metaphysics by Alexander, Ps.-Alexander, Syrianus, and Asclepius; requires Greek.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. Vol. 3, Logic and metaphysics. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAnthology of texts with commentary that includes discussion of a number of metaphysical topics, alongside and often in connection with logic (e.g. categories, universals, modal logic). No knowledge of Greek or Latin required.

    Find this resource:

  • Verbeke, Gérard. 1981. Aristotle’s Metaphysics viewed by the ancient Greek commentators. In Studies in Aristotle. Edited by Dominic J. O’Meara, 107–127. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNExamines the ancient commentaries on the Metaphysics, highlighting their focus on the theological content of Aristotle’s treatise.

    Find this resource:

Ethics

The literature on ethics is smaller than that on other topics, reflecting the interests of the commentators themselves. Anyone interested in ethics should look at the literature on Aspasius, listed under his name, and note also the shorter works on ethical topics by Alexander of Aphrodisias, translated in Sharples 1990 and discussed in Madigan 1987. The later Byzantine composite commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics is discussed in Mercken 1990. Three commentaries all addressing Aristotle’s discussions of friendship in Nicomachean Ethics Books 8 and 9 are translated in Konstan 2001. Sorabji 2004 also covers ethical topics. Although not a commentary on Aristotle, Porphyry’s treatise on animals, translated in Clark 2000, is an important ethical text by one of the commentators.

  • Clark, Gillian. 2000. Porphyry on abstinence from killing animals. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn annotated translation with a helpful introduction of an important ethical treatise by one of the commentators.

    Find this resource:

  • Konstan, David. 2001. Commentators on Aristotle on friendship: Aspasius On Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 8 with Anonymous Paraphrase of Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 8 and 9 and Michael of Ephesus On Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 9. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAnnotated translations of extracts from three commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics. The section from Aspasius was later reprinted in Konstan’s complete translation of Aspasius’s commentary, published in the same series in 2006.

    Find this resource:

  • Madigan, Arthur. 1987. Alexander of Aphrodisias: The book of ethical problems. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Part 2, Principat. Vol. 36, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie. Fascicle 2, Platonismus [Forts.], Aristotelismus. Edited by W. Haase, 1260–1279. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA helpful survey of the central themes in Alexander’s Ethical Problems. Although not introductory, it should be accessible for readers new to the topic.

    Find this resource:

  • Mercken, H. P. F. 1990. The Greek commentators on Aristotle’s Ethics. In Aristotle transformed: The ancient commentators and their influence. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 407–443. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNFocused primarily on the later Byzantine composite commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, parts of which probably date from antiquity.

    Find this resource:

  • Sharples, R. W. 1990. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ethical problems. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA translation into English of Alexander’s short texts on ethics, with a helpful introduction. Although not a commentary as such, these texts are important for understanding ethics in the Peripatetic commentary tradition.

    Find this resource:

  • Sorabji, Richard. 2004. The philosophy of the commentators, 200–600 AD: A sourcebook. Vol. 1, Psychology. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAnthology of texts with commentary that includes discussion of ethical and religious topics alongside topics in psychology; see especially ch. 17. No knowledge of Greek or Latin required.

    Find this resource:

Later Reception

The Greek commentators were an important influence on the development of Arabic philosophy. A classic study is Badawi 1987. A more accessible introduction can be found in D’Ancona 2005. Boethius’s commentaries exercised a vital influence on early medieval logic in the Latin tradition, on which see Lewry 1981. Many Greek commentaries were translated into Latin alongside the works of Aristotle in the 12th and 13th centuries, on which see Dod 1982. On the impact of the Greek commentators in the Renaissance, see Mahoney 1982 and Schmitt 1987.

  • Badawi, A. 1987. La transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe. Paris: Vrin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNThis revised and expanded second edition of a book first published in 1968 discusses the transmission of all Greek philosophy to the Arabic world, including the commentators. An appendix includes translations into French of texts by Alexander and Themistius lost in Greek but extant in Arabic.

    Find this resource:

  • D’Ancona, Cristina. 2005. Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in translation. In The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor, 10–31. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNAn accessible overview of the translation of Greek philosophy into Arabic, containing much discussion of the commentators.

    Find this resource:

  • Dod, Bernard G. 1982. Aristoteles latinus. In The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy. Edited by Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, 45–79. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1017/CHOL9780521226059Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA thorough discussion of the translation of Aristotle into Latin in the Middle Ages, including a table (pp. 74–79) recording the medieval Latin translations of Greek commentaries.

    Find this resource:

  • Lewry, Osmund. 1981. Boethian logic in the medieval west. In Boethius: His life, thought and influence. Edited by Margaret Gibson, 90–134. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA scholarly yet accessible account of the influence of Boethius’s logical works, including his commentaries on Aristotle.

    Find this resource:

  • Mahoney, Edward P. 1982. Neoplatonism, the Greek commentators and Renaissance Aristotelianism. In Neoplatonism and Christian thought. Edited by Dominic J. O’Meara, 169–184 (notes on 264–282). Norfolk, VA: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNExamines the reception of Themistius and Simplicius in the Renaissance, especially in relation to Neoplatonic metaphysics.

    Find this resource:

  • Schmitt, Charles. 1987. Philoponus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics in the sixteenth century. In Philoponus and the rejection of Aristotelian science. Edited by Richard Sorabji, 210–230. London: Duckworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation » Share Citation »

    NNNA discussion of the reception of Philoponus in the late Renaissance.

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down