Commentaries on Aristotle's writings have been produced since the 2nd century AD. This edition contains Greek commentaries on his work from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD by, among others, Alexander of Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in Greek.

Commentaries on Aristotle's writings have been produced since the 2nd century AD. This edition contains Greek commentaries on his work from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD by, among others, Alexander of Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in Greek.

Chapter 9 of Aristotle's 'On Interpretation' deals with determinism, and here the two influential commentaries of Ammonius and Boethius have been published together.

Ever since Aristotle's famous argument about the sea-battle tomorrow, there has been intensive and controversial discussion among philosophers whether the truth of statements about the future leads to determinism. Ther e is controversy about Aristotle's own solution to the problem, as well as the views of classical and medieval commentators on Aristotle. Seel's book attempts to answer this question for the Neoplatonist Ammonius (5th-6th century AD). In so doing, he also opens up new insights into Neoplatonic thought.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the source of Plutarch's inspiration for the impressive discourse which he presents from the lips of Ammonius in the De E apud Delphos, and in particular for the following much-quoted passage.

L’exégèse de l’Isagoge de Porphyre par Ammonius et, partant, son interprétation des célèbres lignes 1.9-12 sont les premières chronologiquement à nous avoir été préservées. Bien que l’essence de cette interprétation, la soi-disant doctrine des trois états de l’universel, soit aujourd’hui bien connue, la section du commentaire dans laquelle elle apparaît n’a jusqu’ici jamais été entièrement traduite. L’article qui suit présente une traduction complète du commentaire d’Ammonius sur l’Isagoge 1.9-12, précédée d’une brève introduction.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the source of Plutarch's inspiration for the impressive discourse which he presents from the lips of Ammonius in the De E apud Delphos, and in particular for the following much-quoted passage.

According to Philoponus, the activity of drawing syllogisms is a dynamic operation. Following the classical idea that actions are specified by their objects and habitual powers by their actions, Philoponus concludes that only a dynamic power can elicit the act of syllogizing. This power is identified with discursive reasoning (dianoia). Imagination, on the contrary, is a static power, that cannot elicit that particular motion of drawing a syllogistic inference. The issue, however, is not entirely uncontroversial, because Ammonius maintains that (...) sophistical syllogisms can only be formed by imagination, since they involve “empty concepts” as terms and only imagination can form such concepts. In this paper I will reconstruct Philoponus’ and Ammonius’ theories about the “activity” of syllogizing, and I shall explain how Philoponus can deal with sophistical syllogisms in a consistent way. (shrink)

L’article se propose de vérifier le caractère néoplatonicien de la métaphysique d’Ammonius, fils d’Hermias, dans le dialogue intitulé Ammonius de Zacharie de Mytilène. Jusqu’à présent la recherche a cru pouvoir conclure de ce texte que la pensée d’Ammonius se rapprochait à certains égards du christianisme. Plusieurs éléments dans l’ Ammonius prouvent pourtant sans équivoque que le chef d’école alexandrin est resté fidèle au néoplatonisme païen, et notamment à la distinction proclusienne entre l’éternité divine et la perpétuité (...) du monde. (shrink)

We have two neoplatonic commentaries on the crucial chapter in Aristotle's De Interpretatione on fatalism.

ABSTRACT: This paper collects the evidence in Ammonius' surviving works for elements of a propositional logic, coming to the conclusion that Ammonius had a theory of hypothetical syllogisms in the tradition of Aristotle and the Peripatetics, with Platonic elements mixed in, and using some Stoic elements, but not a propositional logic in the narrower sense as we find it in Stoic logic.

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

Damascius of Damascus, last ‘Platonic successor’ in Athens, is rarely compared to one of his masters, namely Ammonius, the philosopher of Alexandria. When scholars do compare the two Neoplatonist philosophers, they usually focus on the negative picture of Ammonius, which is drawn by Damascius in his Philosophical History. In this paper, I argue that Damascius admired Ammonius’ intellectual endeavours and espoused a basic feature of the philosophical exegesis of his master, namely his concordism regarding the philosophies of (...) Plato and Aristotle, as is evident in Damascius’ surviving work on Plato and his (fragmentarily preserved) treatise On Time. Damascius’ downgrading of Ammonius came about rather as a disappointment, which is however by no means fully justified. (shrink)

The paper is concerned with a similar entry of the lexica of Thomas Magister and Ps-Ammonius concerning the semantic difference between συγγρα- φεῖς and ἱστορικοί. The entry is proven to be ultimately descended from the lost lexicon Περὶ τῶν διαφόρως σημαινομένων of Herennius Philon (2nd cent. AD); this lexicon in its lost unabridged form seems to have influenced the distinction συγγραφεῖς / ἱστορικοί in the preface of the historical work of Eustathius on the sack of Thessalonica by the Normans. (...) The paper investigates the possibility of a Hellenistic grammatical substratum in Philon’s distinction; based on the evidence of literary texts and inscriptions, the paper asserts that the distinction (probably received by Philon from a Hellenistic-era grammatical source) was already vanishing in Philon’s days. (shrink)

The XIIIth meeting of the Symposium Aristotelicum, which took place in 1993 on the De Interpretatione, had a very strange and very sad history. True enough, it took place in the enchanting decor of the Certosa di Pontignano, near Siena ; and, as usual, it offered contributions and discussions of the highest order. But this time the publication of the papers met with insurmountable obstacles. It had been initially entrusted to Mario Mignucci and Michael Frede, two of the most faithful (...) and devoted participants in the Symposium. Most infortunately, however, they were both wrenched from our admiration and affection, Mario Mignucci in 2004, after a protracted and merciless disease, Michael Frede in 2007, owing to an unpredictable, sudden accident. The inevitable ensuing delay for the publication of the XIIIth Symposium has not been caught up with so far and those members of the Organization Committee whom I have been able to contact told me that, in their opinion, it ran a strong risk of never being caught up at all, alas. By a moving coincidence (at least for me), no more than three weeks before Michael’s death, my colleague and friend, Professor Thomas De Koninck, had asked me if I would agree to publish the present paper in the Laval théologique et philosophique. Thomas and his collaborators Paul Asselin and Martin Achard helped me to finally overcome my scruples ; I am deeply grateful to them. As for this long paper itself, it would be difficult to summarize it : it is, or tries to be, exactly what it looks like, namely a detailed reading of Ammonius’ commentary to the famous Chapter One of the De Interpretatione. If this reading has any dose of originality, it will be due not so much to the lights the ancient commentary may shed (or not shed) on the letter and the interpretation of the Aristotelician text as to what it may teach concerning the methods, selections, and intellectual behaviour of its author himself, as well as with regard to his own philosophical and pedagogical reactions before such a text as Aristotle’s own. (shrink)

One of the main difficulties that Neoplatonic commentators of Aristotle face is the different treatment that the Categories and the Metaphysics offer to the question of the substance. After describing briefly the status quaestionis ousiae in Aristotle, and after tracing the main Neoplatonic interpretations of this doctrine, this article attempts to demonstrate that the Neoplatonists of Athens and Alexandria, Syrianus and Ammonius, inaugurate a new interpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine. With regard to the category of substance in general and (...) to the question of substantiality of “immanent form” in particular, this new interpretation goes beyond the positions of Plotinus and Porphyry and returns the ontological value to the Aristotelian substances. Unlike Plotinus, who recognized as ousia only that one intelligible, that is five genres of the Platonic Sophist, and unlike Porphyry, who defused the anti–Platonic fuse of the Categories, giving to this treaty a mainly semantic skopos, these philosophers, through their original study of the theory of the three states of katholou, already shed in the Porphyrian Eisagôgê, fit the immanent forms of Aristotle, recognized as substances and as a reflection of the transcendental universal, into the late antique Neoplatonic metaphysical triadic structure. (shrink)