12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. We apologise for the inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 August 2016
In the Neoplatonic schools, introductions to logic, and the Categories in particular, would begin with a list of ten different questions relating to Aristotle's philosophy and his ideal interpreter and student. Olympiodorus' own introduction to logic (the Prolegomena) follows this pattern; he expands on the remarks of his own teacher Ammonius of Alexandria, and closely models his discussion on his predecessor's work. In the standard list of ten questions that must be discussed in an introductory philosophy course, the third relates to the subject with which the student is to start his or her philosophical education. Which of logic, ethics, natural science and mathematics is the proper starting-point for philosophy?
1 The list of ten questions to be discussed before the reading of Aristotle goes back to Proclus, who composed a treatise, lost to us, on this subject. See Elias, In Cat. 107.24-6, and cf. J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author or a Text (Leiden, 1994), 22. These questions are: ‘(1) Where do the names of the philosophical schools come from? (2) What is the division of Aristotle's books? (3) Where should one begin with Aristotle's books? (4) What is their respective rank, and which ones can carry us to the summit of his philosophy? (5) What obvious utility derives from the attainment of philosophy? (6) What kind of person should a student of Aristotle's books be? (7) What kind of person should a commentator be? (8) Why did the Philosopher make a point of being unclear? (9) What is the style of his writing? (10) How many and what kind of preliminaries should there be for each book?’ (Olympiodorus, Prol. 1.16-24; my own translation).
2 The Greek text of Olympiodorus' Prolegomena is that by A. Busse, Olympiodori Prolegomena et in Categorias Commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 12.1) (Berlin, 1902), 1–25. Ammonius' Prolegomena are contained in A. Busse, Ammonius in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarius (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 4.4) (Berlin, 1895), 1–15.
3 For this list of four disciplines, cf. Prol. 8.30-2: καὶ περὶ τούτου τέσσαρες δόξαι γεγόνασιν· καὶ οἱ μὲν τῆς πρώτης δόξης φασὶν ὅτι τῆς ἠθικῆς δεῖ ἄρξασθαι, οἱ δὲ τῆς δευτέρας τῆς φυσιολογικῆς, οἱ δὲ τῆς μαθηματικῆς, οἱ δὲ τῆς λογικῆς.
4 Cf. Prol. 8.34-6: ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ τὰ σκοτεινὰ ὄμματα ἔχοντες οὐ δύνανται πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀποβλέψαι, οὕτως οὐδέ τις βαρυνόμενος πάθεσι ψυχῆς δύναται τούτων ἅψασθαι. Olympiodorus here departs from Ammonius, who argues that ethical reasoning uses, and therefore presupposes knowledge of, syllogistic reasoning. Cf. Ammonius, In Cat. 6.2-5: ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ κέχρηται ἀποδείξεσι καὶ συλλογισμοῖς, ἐμέλλομεν δὲ αὐτοὺς ἀγνοεῖν ἀνήκοοι τῶν τοιούτων ὑπάρχοντες λόγων, διὰ τοῦτο ἄρα ἀπὸ τῆς λογικῆς ἀρκτέον, προκοσμήσαντας μέντοι τὰ ἑαυτῶν ἤθη καὶ δίχα τῆς ἠθικῆς πραγματείας.
5 The only MS for Olympiodorus' Prolegomena (Mutiniensis 96, in the Biblioteca Estense; c. fourteenth century a.d.) does not show any evidence of tampering with the text at this point (folio 9r), but the corruption might simply date further back. I am grateful to Dr Annalisa Battini for her assistance.
6 It is worth noting that Olympiodorus' student Elias does not mention theology when discussing the starting point for philosophy (see In Cat. 117.20-119.25). See also n. 4 above.
7 Both pagan and Christian readers and copyists could have brought this assumption to bear on the text. The possibility of a simple scribal error, rather than an ideological emendation, cannot be excluded, however; a parallel in the Prolegomena would be e.g. 15.8-9, where τὸ θεωρητικόν and τὸ μαθηματικόν are confused.
8 The influence of Ammonius may have played a role here too; cf. his In Cat. 6.6-8: μετὰ δὲ τὴν λογικὴν ἰτέον ἐπὶ τὴν ἠθικήν, καὶ οὕτως ἀντιληπτέον τῶν φυσικῶν, καὶ μετ' ἐκεῖνα τῶν μαθηματικῶν, καὶ οὕτως ἐσχάτων τῶν θεολογικῶν.
