kommentierung, Überlieferung, nachleben () || syrianus and pseudo- alexander’s commentary on...

LEONARDO TARAN, New York

SYRIANUS AND PSEUDO-ALEXANDER'S COMMENTARY ON METAPH. E-N

The commentary on the Metaph. that the majority of our MSS ascribe to Alexander of Aphrodisias falls into two parts: that on books Α-Δ and that on books E-N (hereafter sometimes referred to as first and second parts respectively).1 This division has to do not with subject-matter but with authorship: the second part of the com-mentary is now generally considered not to be by Alexander. But the authorship of the commentary on E-N, its source or sources, and its relative date in regard to the commentaries of Syrianus, Asclepius, and Ps.-Philoponus, as well as to Simplicius' on the Gael., are still subject to dispute.2 The issues are important. They include not only the relation of the extant commentary on E-N to the lost part of Alexander's but also its relation to Syrianus' on M-N and the ques-tion of whether or not Syrianus himself had direct or indirect access to the lost part of Alexander's work. A summary review of the most significant contributions to the subject will be useful in defining and discussing the points still at issue.

Some doubts concerning Alexander's authorship of the commen-tary on E-N seem to have been felt in late antiquity and/or in Byzan-tine times. This is to be inferred from two facts: a second hand in Codex Parisinus Graecus 1876 ( = A), correcting the title of the

1 My references to Alexander's commentary are to M. Hayduck's edition in the CAG I, Berlin 1891. The commentary on Α-Δ occupies 1-439, that on E-N 440-837. Hayduck's edition has in its margins the page and line numbers of the edition by H. Bonitz, Alexandri Aphrodisiensis Commentarius in libros Metaphysicos Aristo-telis, Berlin 1847.

2 The commentary of Syrianus is found in CAG VI 1, ed. by G.Kroll, Berlin 1902; that of Asclepius in CAG VI 2, ed. by M.Hayduck, Berlin 1888; Simplicius' on Cael. in CAG VII, ed. by I.L. Heiberg, Berlin 1894. Ps.-Philoponus' commentary on Metaph. will be cited from F. Patrizi's Latin translation, Ferrara 1583. On this work and on the Greek MSS cf. Taran in Gnomon 53 (1981) 750 with nn. 77-79.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical ServicesAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/7/14 11:31 PM

216 L E O N A R D O T A R A N

commentary on book E, ascribes it to Michael Ephesius (XII cent.).3

In addition, the Ps.-Philoponus refers to a passage of the commen-tary on the same book as the work "of the Ephesian," presumably a reference to the same Michael.4

The modern controversy began in earnest in the XVI cent, with the Spaniard Juan Gines de Sepulveda, the adversary of Bartolome Las Casas in the dispute about the American Indians. In the preface to his Latin translation of the commentary, reacting against prevail-ing opinion, he argued in favor of Alexander's authorship of the whole work.5 His arguments fall under four heads: (i) The four old-est MSS, which he examined, all ascribe the work to Alexander; (ii) The style of the commentary on E-N is the same as that of the com-mentary on Α-Δ; (iii) The opinions found in the second part of the commentary are the same as those in the first part and are in agree-ment with those that Averroes and other authors ascribe to Alexan-der; (iv) The later commentators cite the whole commentary as the work of Alexander; moreover, as the author cites no authority later than Aspasius and Sosigenes and mentions Alexander's name, he cannot be earlier or later than him.

Sepulveda's arguments were rejected by the humanist Francesco Patrizi, who in his Discussiones Peripateticae sought to ascribe the commentary on E-N to Alexander Aegeus, a much later author than Alexander of Aphrodisias.6 In the first part of the XIX cent., C.A. Brandis doubted Alexander's authorship and tentatively assigned the second part of the commentary to Michael Ephesius or to some other such late author.7 F. Ravaisson for his part came out strongly in favor of Michael's authorship.8

3 The old dispute about Michael Ephesius' lifetime can be considered superseded by unquestionable evidence that he was active in the first half of the XII cent. Cf. R. Browning, An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena, Proc. Cambr. Phi-lol. Soc. 188 (NS 8) (1962) 1-12, esp. 7 and 12.

4 Cf. [Philoponus], In Metaph. fol. 25 a. 5 For Sepulveda's arguments I have relied on the long citation given by Bonitz (op.

cit., note 1 above) XV-XVII; he used the edition of Paris 1536, which was not available to me.

' F. Patrizi, Discussionum Peripateticarum Tomi IV, Basel 1581, 32-33. 7 Cf. C.A.Brandis, Scholia in Aristotelem, Berlin 1836, note in 734 a ( = Aristotelis

Opera.. .edidit Academia Regia Borussica, vol. IV). • Cf. F. Ravaisson, Essai sur la Metaphysique d'Aristote, I, Paris 1837, 64-65.



Syrianus and Ps.-Alexander's Commentary on Metaph. E-N 217

However, study of this question and of the commentary itself could not be fruitfully pursued on the basis of Sepulveda's transla-tion, but required a complete edition of the Greek text. Such an edi-tion was produced by H.Bonitz only in 18 47.9 In his preface10 he discusses the authorship of the second part of the commentary, cit-ing at length Sepulveda's arguments, which he then proceeds to cor-rect and supplement. Against Sepulveda Bonitz argues that in style and content the commentary on E-N differs from that on Α-Δ. But, against those who reject Alexander's authorship of the second part, he contends that the commentator writes as if he were Alexander himself, for he cites and refers to some authentic works of Alexan-der and to the commentary on Α-Δ as if he was their author. More-over, he stresses the testimony of Syrianus, who has made use either of the extant commentary on E-N or of an earlier version of it, and who explicitly ascribes some individual opinions to Alexander him-self. Furthermore, he maintains that there is no important doctrinal disagreement between the first and the second part of the commen-tary that should prevent us from ascribing the content of the second part to Alexander. He then concludes that the extant commentary on E-N, though not the work of Alexander himself, is based on the lost part of his commentary. However, the redactor, who is considerably later than Alexander, has reworked, rewritten and shortened Alexan-der's original. Bonitz's conclusions were influential and were ac-cepted by some scholars almost without qualification.11

It should be stressed at once that Bonitz's discussion had two serious shortcomings: he failed to consider the possibility that the Ps.-Alexander was a forger and he neglected to take into account the citations of Alexander's commentary on book A made by Aver-roes (1126-1198 A.D.) in his "great" commentary on Aristotle's

' Cf. note 1 above. 10 Cf. Bonitz, op.cit. (note 1 above) V, XIV-XXVII. Cf. also H.Bonitz, Aristotelis

Metaphysica, 2 vols., Bonn 1848-49, I, IX and 11,8. 11 Cf. e.g. H.Usener, in his edition of Syrianus, op.cit. (in note 7 above) 945 b; E.

Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen III, 1 \ 790 (but cf. note 15 below); Kleine Schrif-ten, I, Berlin 1910, 195, η. 1. An opinion similar to Bonitz's concerning the relation of Ps.-Alexander to the lost part of Alexander's commentary already in A.B. Krische, Die theologischen Lehren der griechischen Denker, Göttingen 1840, 292, note.




Metaph.12 It is precisely because he addressed himself to these two issues that J. Freudenthal produced what is still the most important and in some respects definitive study of the question.13 Because the Medieval or Renaissance Latin translation of Averroes' commentary is defective, he publishes a German version of the Hebrew transla-tion of that work for those passages where Averroes cites Alexan-der's commentary on Λ.14 Freudenthal advances strong arguments in

12 It should also be said that Bonitz's high opinion of Sepulveda's authority was with-out foundat ion. On Averroes' use of Alexander's commentary on Metaph. Λ cf. note 14 below.

13 Cf. J. Freudenthal, Die durch Averroes erhaltenen Fragmente Alexanders zur Meta-physik des Aristoteles untersucht und übersetzt. Mit Beiträgen zur Erläuterung des arabischen Textes von S.Frankel, Berlin 1885 ( = APAW 1884).

14 Cf. Freudenthal, op.cit. (note 13 above), pp. 65 sqq. His translation was compared by S. Frankel with a MS of the Arabic text and many corrections were thereby adopted. T h e Arabic text of Averroes' "great" commentary on the Metaph. has been published by M.Bouyges, 3 vols., Beirut 1938, 1942, 1948; a second edition in 2 vols, appeared in 1967. On the Arabs' knowledge of Alexander's commentary on Metaph. A cf. M. Steinschneider, Beiheft XII zum Zentralblatt fü r Bibliotheks-wesen (1893) 195-197; reprinted in: Die Arabischen Übersetzungen aus dem Grie-chischen, Graz 1960, 105-107. According to the Fihrist (X cent. A.D.) "The letter Ν" (or M? sc. of the Metaph.) "was extant in Greek in the commentary of Alexan-der", cf. Bayard Dodge, ed. and transl., The Fihrist of al-Nadlm, II, New York 1970, 606. However that may be, Averroes himself says that he had only two thirds of Alexander's commentary on A and the whole of Themistius' paraphrase, but that with these two exceptions no commentary on any book of the Metaph. was avail-able to him, cf. Freudenthal, op. cit., 67,1-5. A similar statement about Alexander is found in Alfarabi (ca. 870-950 A.D.) , cf. Freudenthal, op.cit., 52. Averroes later maintains that Themistius' paraphrase is a summary of Alexander's commentary, explicitly basing his inference on the contents of Themistius' work, cf. Freudenthal, op.cit., 71,13-18. Freudenthal, op.cit., 49-51 too believes that Themistius knew Alexander's commentary on A, but the question requires fur ther study. Themistius' paraphrase on A is extant in a Hebrew version of the Arabic translation. It was published, with a corrected edition of M. Finzi's Latin translation, by S. Landauer in CAG V 5. Addendum: After this paper went to the press, two translations of Averroes' com-mentary on Metaph.A have been published: A.Mart in, Averroes. Grand Commen-taire de la Metaphysique d'Aristote. Livre Lam-Lambda. Tradui t de l'Arabe et annote. Paris 1984 ( = Bibl. de la Fac. de Philos. et Lettres de l'Univ. de Liege. Fasc. 234) and C. Genequand, Ibn Rushd's Metaphysics. A Translation with Intro-duction of Ibn Rushd's Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Läm. Leiden 1984. Martin's attempt (op.cit., 25, n.2) to cast doubt on Freudenthal 's arguments to the effect that the Ps.-Alexander cannot have known Alexander's commentary on




support of the authenticity of Averroes' quotations and, from a com-parison of them with the relevant part of Ps.-Alexander's commen-tary on Λ, concludes that the latter cannot at all go back to Alexan-der's own commentary on that book. He then contends that, though Alexander in his authentic works cites himself and makes some mis-takes, it is impossible that he could have made some of the mistakes found in the commentary on E-N. Next he stresses that both the style and the philosophical opinions of the Ps.-Alexander are essen-tially at variance with those of Alexander, and maintains that the for-mer is really a Neoplatonist. Finally, he argues that the Ps.-Alexan-der has taken over from Syrianus opinions which the latter ascribes to Alexander and that in doing so he betrays himself as a forger. According to Freudenthal Simplicius was the last ancient author who knew the lost part of Alexander's commentary. He also asserts that the Ps.-Alexander cannot be earlier than the V cent. A. D., since he depends on Syrianus, but that he cannot be Michael Ephesius, who was a Christian, whereas Ps.-Alexander was a polytheist. Hence, he cannot be later than the VI cent., for after Olympiodorus there were no longer Pagan philosophers. Freudenthal's study had a consider-able influence, though not all his conclusions were universally ac-cepted.15

The last important study of the issue hitherto published is that by K. Praechter.16 He agrees with Freudenthal that the Ps.-Alexan-der depends on Syrianus, but against him he contends that the for-mer commentator was not a forger: his references to Alexander do not support the inference that he wished his work to be taken as that of Alexander. Praechter also maintains that Freudenthal was mis-taken in his interpretation that the Ps.-Alexander could not have been a Christian: the non-Christian contents of the work are due to the fact that in Michael's time philosophy is no longer necessarily

Metaph. E-N does not even come to grips with the fundamental issue. What is decisive is not the vague similarities of two commentaries on the same work but the important and significant differences between the two. Genequand, op.cit., 6 -7 with n.7 merely follows Praechter in thinking that the Ps.-Alexander is Michael Ephesius.

15 Even Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen III, Is, Leipzig 1923, 819, note seems to con-cede that Freudenthal's arguments are sufficient to doubt the authenticity of the commentary on E-N.

16 K.Praechter, review of CAG XXII 2 in: GGA (1906) 861-907, esp. 882-899.




dependent on religious views. Mainly on the basis of the language of the commentary on E-N, of that on the Gener. An. ascribed to Phi-loponus, and of that on the Soph. El. ascribed to Alexander, Praech-ter concludes that the three are the work of Michael Ephesius, for the peculiarities of vocabulary of these three works are the same as those in Michael's own works. He believes that also the philosoph-ical doctrines are the same.

Several issues can be considered definitively settled by one or another of the preceding studies.17 To begin with, it is clear that both in style and in content the commentary on E-N differs in essentials from that on Α-Δ and from Alexander's other genuine works.18 Sec-ondly, Freudenthal has shown that the Ps.-Alexander did not have direct or indirect access to the lost part of Alexander's commentary on the Metaph.19 Thirdly, the ascriptions of the authorship of the commentary on E-N found in our manuscripts, as well as the testi-mony of Ps.-Philoponus, have no evidential value.20 The issues still

17 No independent study of this question was published after Praechter's. P. Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise. Exegete de la Noetique d'Aristote, Liege-Paris 1942, 14-19 after a summary of the bibliography accepted that the commentary on E-N is not by Alexander and decided not to use it for the reconstruction of Alexander's psy-chological opinions.

18 For the language, it is sufficient to refer to Bonitz (op. cit. in note 1 above), XXV-XXVII and to Praechter (op. cit. in note 16 above), the latter with the qualifications given in note 41 below. (Praechter's discussion is indebted to the work of V.Rose cited in note 19 below.) The evidence they collect shows that Ps.-Alexander was influenced by Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism. For the contents cf. the rest of this paper.

" This he did not merely on the basis of a comparison of Averroes' citations of Alex-ander's commentary on A with Ps.-Alexander's on the same book but also by point-ing out that many mistakes in Ps.-Alexander cannot go back to Alexander. Conse-quently the attempt of J.Zahlfleisch, AGPh 13 (1900), 85-89 to revive Bonitz's hypothesis is a total failure even apart from his desperate and uncritical attempt to weaken the testimony of Averroes. Before Freudenthal, both Patrizi (cf. note 6 above) and V.Rose, De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate commentatio, Berlin 1854, 146-151 made use of Averroes' citations in their discussions of the authorship of the commentary on E-N but without any decisive results. Rose ascribed the second part of the commentary to Michael Ephesius but for the rest basically agreed with Bonitz.

20 Since the commentary on E-N is transmitted in the same MSS as that on Α-Δ, the ascription of the former to Alexander does not carry any authority, since there are strong reasons for thinking that it cannot be by him. On the other hand, the ascrip-tion to Michael Ephesius by a second hand in A may be due to the reference in Ps.-




outstanding are two: (i) The relation of Syrianus' commentary on books M-N to the lost part of Alexander's commentary; (ii) The authorship and the relative date of Ps.-Alexander's commentary in regard to Syrianus' commentary on M-N. Since in style and contents the commentary on E-N is a unified work, the inferences about the above mentioned issues drawn for one or more books are prima facie valid for the whole work.

What seems so far to have prevented further progress in the study of the relation of Syrianus' commentary on M-N to the Ps.-Alexan-der is the assumption-shared, despite their different viewpoints, by Bonitz, Freudenthal, Praechter, and others- that Syrianus himself had direct or indirect access to Alexander's lost commentary on E-N or M-N. For it can be shown with, I believe, all reasonable probabil-ity that for books M-N Syrianus did not make use of the corre-sponding part of Alexander's commentary. This is important in itself, since in that case Syrianus cannot be used as testimony to the lost part of Alexander's commentary. But there is more; for once it is seen that Syrianus did not have direct or indirect access to the sec-ond part of Alexander's commentary, it will become likely that he knew and made use of Ps.-Alexander's commentary which he mis-takenly took to be the work of Alexander himself.

It is therefore of primary importance to determine the criteria to be used in deciding whether or not Syrianus (for books M-N), and Ps.-Alexander too,21 made direct or indirect use of the genuine Alex-ander's commentary on books Ε—Ν of the Metaph. Now not every difference, including doctrinal ones, from Alexander need be signifi-cant,22 though many or all such differences may be useful to round

Philoponus (cf. note 4 above) or vice versa. But even if the two are independent of one another and even if Michael Ephesius wrote a commentary on E-N (cf. the scholion cited by Rose, op.cit. in note 19 above, 147), the extant commentary can-not be by him, since in all probability, as I hope to show, it was used already by Syr-ianus. Cf. addendum.

21 Though Freudenthal has proved the point so far as the Ps.-Alexander is concerned, my arguments against the possibility that Syrianus had access to the second part of Alexander's commentary are also valid for the Ps.-Alexander.

22 This is so because we are dealing with commentaries, so that it is not always easy to determine what are the philosophical opinions of the commentator. As for lan-guage and style, we must, in the case of the Ps.-Alexander, take into account the possibility that he may have based his work on that of Alexander, as Bonitz pro-posed.



222 L E O N A R D O TARÄN

up the picture, if one can first decide the issue with as much objectiv-ity as possible. T o my mind there are two criteria which meet this requirement: (a) Alexander was not only the greatest ancient Aristo-telian interpreter, but he also had a very detailed and accurate knowledge of Aristotle's thought and writings. H e made mistakes, but there are certain mistakes that he could hardly have made. It is practically impossible to suppose, for example, that, having given a correct explanation of an Aristotelian doctrine in one place of his commentary, he would in another a propos of a different passage where Aristotle puts forward the same doctrine but with a slightly different wording, have given a different and incorrect account. An instance of such a mistake on the part of the Ps.-Alexander may be seen by comparing Alexander's commentary on Metaph. 1006 a l l (272,28 sqq.) with Ps.-Alexander's on 1062 a 5 (648,1 sqq.).23 And there are many more such mistakes both in Ps.-Alexander and in Syrianus, which indicate that neither of them had access to Alexan-der's work on books E-N of the Metaph.24 (b) Alexander would not have explicitly or implicitly contradicted or neglected Aristotle's statements about, and distinctions between, the several Platonistic doctrines which he outlines and criticizes. (Several examples will be given in what follows.) Sometimes these two criteria can be com-bined.25 In this connection it is important to keep in mind the impor-tant passage Metaph. 1028 b 19-27, for there Aristotle makes a clear distinction between the doctrines of Plato, Speusippus, and Xenoc-rates. H e asserts that Plato, in addition to the sensibles, posited two

23 This example of disagreement between Alexander and Ps.-Alexander was cited by Bonitz, op. cit. (note 1 above), XXIV, who tried to explain it away by referring to Sepulveda's authority: "qu 'u est enim, qui in omnibus pariter sibi satis/aciat?" But this is not simply a case of unimportant inconsistency, since it reveals that the Ps.-Alex-ander does not have the deep understanding of Aristotle that we associate with good reason with Alexander. T o defend his interpretation Bonitz should have cited a parallel discrepancy between two interpretations in the genuine writings of Alex-ander.

24 In what follows my remarks are confined to the commentaries on M-N. For addi-tional mistakes on the part of Syrianus and the Ps.-Alexander concerning Platonis-tic doctrines cf. the references in note 32 below.

" In fact Freudenthal himself used these two criteria in the case of the Ps.-Alexander, but he neglected to apply them to Syrianus because he had persuaded himself that Ps.-Alexander borrowed from Syrianus and that the latter had had access to Alex-ander's commentary on E-N or M-N.



Syrianus and Ps.-Alexander's Commentary on Metaph. E - N 223

kinds of non-sensible substance, the ideas and the (intermediate) mathematicals. Speusippus, beginning with the One, posited more substances (sc. than Plato), and different principles for each kind of substance: one for numbers, another for magnitudes, and still another for the soul. Some (i. e. Xenocrates) identify the ideas with the numbers and say that the other substances come after them; these are lines and planes, etc. until we reach the celestial substance and the sensibles.26 Though Aristotle when he criticizes these doc-trines may attempt to refute them all at the same time or may attack one with consequences which follow from another, he never con-fuses the main characteristics of the three as he outlines them in 1028 b 19-27.

The discussion must be mainly concerned with the passages in Syrianus' and in the Ps.-Alexander's commentaries on M-N which are parallel to one another. Since the days of Bonitz scholars have observed that a number of passages in the two commentaries are either almost word for word identical or so similar that it is impossi-ble to avoid the inference that the two works must be related in one of three ways: (a) Ps.-Alexander and Syrianus both go back to a common source; (b) Ps.-Alexander depends on Syrianus; (c) Syria-nus depends on Ps.-Alexander. Bonitz preferred (a) or (c), Kroll (c), Freudenthal and Praechter (b). But Kroll did not offer much in the way of argument,27 while Bonitz's discussion is indecisive and unsa-tisfactory.28 On the other hand, Freudenthal, who is followed by Praechter, is demonstrably mistaken.29

26 For the interpretation of Metaph. 1028 b 19-27, of the context where it occurs, and of Ps.-Alexander's misunderstanding of it, cf. L.Taran, Speusippus of Athens, Leiden 1981, 299-302.

" Kroll, op. cit. (note 2 above), VI with note 1: "Neque enim veri simile est Ps. Alexan-drum, qui usque quaque Aristotelis verba παραφράζε ι , uti Syriano, qui interdum pa-raphrasin det id unum spectans, ut Platonem ab Aristotelis reprehensionibus defendat; immo Syrianus, ubi Aristotelis verba discipulis planiora reddere volebat, commodum duxit eum librum expilare, in quo totum Aristotelem adulescentium ingeniis accommo-datum inveniret." This argument has some validity but is not decisive by itself. In his crit. app. Kroll refers to the parallel passages in Ps.-Alexander.

28 This is so because Bonitz failed to see (and really to consider) that the Ps.-Alexan-der cannot have had access to Alexander's commentary on E-N, and that the same is true of Syrianus.

29 Cf. note 25 above and my remarks in the rest of this paper.




To begin with, it will be convenient to examine the following passage in Ps.-Alexander (777,16-21) which is a comment on Metaph. 1085 a 13: "την δέ κατά t o εν," φησίν, "αρχήν" ούχ ομοίως ενσηγον άπαντες, αλλ' οί μεν αυτούς τους αριθμούς τά εϊδη τοις μεγέθεσιν ελεγον έπιφέρειν, οίον δυάδα μεν γραμμή, τρι-άδα δέ έπιπέδφ, τετράδα δέ στερεφ (τοιαύτα γαρ έν τοις Περί φιλοσοφίας ιστορεί περί Πλάτωνος, δι' δ και ενταύθα βραχέως και συντόμως την τούτων έξέθετο διάνοιαν), οί δέ μεθέξει τοϋ ένός τό είδος άπετέλουν των μεγεθών. With the exception of the words δι' δ . . .διάνοιαν in the parenthesis, which are of no impor-tance for the point at issue here, the passage is word for word ident-ical with Syrianus, 154,9-13. In this passage then the two commenta-tors ascribe to Plato the doctrine that (i) the numbers themselves are the forms (τά εϊδη) of magnitudes, two of the line, three of the plane, and four of the solid; to others the notion that (ii) it is the forms by participation in the One that produce the magnitudes. However, when in Metaph. 1001 b 19-25 Aristotle himself outlines these same two doctrines, the genuine Alexander (228,10-28) ascribes (ii) to Plato and (i) to an unnamed philosopher (τις). And it is noteworthy that Syrianus himself in his commentary on Metaph. 1001 b 19 (48,20 sqq.) ascribes to Plato the very theory that in 154,13 he ascribes to "others." There is independent evidence to show that Aristotle himself ascribed theory (ii) to Plato, while (i) represents the doctrine of Xenocrates.30 It ought to be clear then that whereas in his comment on 1001 b 19 Syrianus, in part at least, followed Alexander on that passage, when he came to write on 1085 a 13 he followed a different commentator. (It is extremely improb-able that this last comment originated with Syrianus himself, not only because of his own comment on 1001 b 19 but also because in other passages which have a parallel in the Ps.-Alexander Syrianus refers to "Alexander"31.) Now since both Syrianus and Ps.-Alexander in the passage under discussion are practically word for word ident-ical, if they both took this passage from a common source, then that source cannot have been Alexander, to whom it is impossible to ascribe such an inconsistency and mistake.

30 Cf. H.Cherniss, Gnomon 31 (1959) 44-49; reprinted in his Selected Papers, Leiden 1977, 431-436.

31 Cf. the discussion that follows on two passages where Syrianus refers to "Alexan-der".




In addition, Ps.-Alexander and Syrianus are in agreement in numerous comments on passages of the Metaph. where Aristotle is alluding to the three Platonistic theories outlined in 1028 b 19-27. And the two commentators are totally mistaken in their interpreta-tion of Aristotle's references to the different doctrines of Speusippus and of Xenocrates. They not only confuse the two but even ascribe to them inconsistent doctrines.32 This being so, since Syrianus refers at least twice to "Alexander's" opinion (see infra), we must conclude that Syrianus took the commentary he was following for books M-N to be by Alexander. But, since it is impossible to ascribe to Alexander himself such mistakes, contradictions, and neglect of Aris-totle's own remarks, we are bound to infer that Syrianus was mis-taken in thinking his source was Alexander. In other words, Syrianus made use of a commentary on Metaph. M - N by a Ps.-Alexander.

In itself the assumption of a Ps.-Alexander commentary on E-N earlier than Syrianus and at the same time different from the extant Ps.-Alexander is rather difficult to accept. And it becomes unecon-omical and unwarranted if one can show there is no reason to sup-pose that the extant Ps.-Alexander depends on Syrianus, whereas there is a good probability that Syrianus depends on the extant com-mentary by Ps.-Alexander, which he mistakenly took to be by Alex-ander himself. Moreover, the following considerations seem to be probable reasons for rejecting the hypothesis of an alleged Ps.-Alex-ander as the common source of both Syrianus and the extant Ps.-Alexander, and also the supposition that Ps.-Alexander depends on Syrianus. There are many parallel passages in Syrianus where Alex-ander's name does not occur and which are free from Syrianus' typi-cal attack on Aristotle in vindication of the several Platonistic doc-trines. Is it likely that the Ps.-Alexander simply happened to hit on the same passages as Syrianus in the alleged earlier commentary33 or

32 For the evidence and a discussion of it cf. H. Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy, I, Baltimore 1944, note 77 (120-121) and Tarän, op. cit. (note 26 above), 302-303; 304, note 91; 306, note 92; 308 with note 93; 311, note 104; 312, note 105; 315, note 115; 327, note 134; 329, note 135; 337, note 140; 345; 347.

33 In fact, except for Bonitz and those who followed him, who wrongly thought that Ps.-Alexander had used Alexander's commentary on E-N, all the scholars who have concerned themselves with this question have thought that the parallels between Syrianus and the Ps.-Alexander are to be explained by the dependence of one com-mentator on the other.




that he copied them from Syrianus without any indication in the lat-ter that they come from an earlier source? I believe it is not. The very style of the parallel passages in Syrianus suggests that he took them from his source and adapted them to his own discussion.34

And, since Syrianus was making use of a commentary on M-N which he wrongly took to be by Alexander, we must ask whether there is any reason to differentiate between the extant Ps.-Alexander and the Ps.-Alexander that was Syrianus' source. There is none, unless one could show either that the extant commentary depends on Syrianus (Freudenthal) and/or was written much later than Syrianus' lifetime (Praechter). On the contrary, there is decisive evidence in favor of the view that Syrianus used the extant Ps.-Alexander commentary on M-N .

This evidence includes two parallel passages where Syrianus men-tions Alexander's name. In fact one of them was used by Freuden-thal to build up his trump argument in favor of the dependence of Ps.-Alexander on Syrianus. In Metaph. 1087 b 9-12 Aristotle, with-out naming him, refers to Plato's principles: και γαρ ό τό άνισον και εν λέγων τά στοιχεία, τό δ' άνισον εκ μεγάλου και μικροϋ δυάδα, ώς εν οντα τό άνισον και τό μέγα και τό μικρόν λέγει, και ού διορίζει δτ ι λόγφ άριθμω δ' ου. Here Aristotle is criticizing Plato because he treated his second principle, the dyad of the great and the small, as a unit, and did not draw the distinction that it is one in definition but not in number. The words ού διορίζει οτι

34 Cf. Kroll's remarks, cited in note 27 above. Freudenthal contends that the parallel passages are an indication of the dependence of Ps.-Alexander on Syrianus rather than vice versa, because in his commentary on Β-Γ Syrianus does not quote and paraphrase Alexander's commentary as he would be doing in his commentary on M-N if he depends on Ps.-Alexander. But there is a reasonable explanation for this change of procedure on his part. Books M-N of the Metaph. are primarily con-cerned with the refutation of several Platonistic theories of mathematicals and ideas. These books were therefore of particular importance to Syrianus, who has an ax to grind when it comes to Aristotle's criticisms of the Platonists. But books M-N seldom identify by name or give details. The names of Speusippus and Xen-ocrates, for example, do not occur in them at all; Plato is mentioned once by name (1083 a 32) and the Phaedo is referred to in 1080 a 2. Moreover, Aristotle's argu-ments in these books are notoriously allusive and obscure. It is therefore intelligi-ble that Syrianus should have made extensive use of what he mistakenly took to be Alexander's commentary. That he felt enthusiastic about that commentary is shown by some of his remarks, cf. note 37 below.




λόγφ άριθμφ δ' oi) are the reading of the MSS, and the parallel of 1088 a 15 shows that this is the required reading.35 However, Ps.-Alexander's and Syrianus' comments show that they probably read άριθμφ λόγφ δ' ου. According to Ps.-Alexander (797,12-17) the point of Aristotle's criticism is that Plato ού διορίζει δτι τφ μεν άριθμφ και τφ ύποκειμένφ εν είσι, τφ δέ λόγφ πολλά, εδει δε εν αύτά λέγοντα διορίζειν πώς εν και πώς ούχ εν. Syrianus (166,26-28) writes εδει γάρ, φησί (sc. ό Αριστοτέλης), τον Πλάτωνα λέγειν δτι ταϋτα λόγφ μεν δύο αριθμώ δέ ε ν ουτω γάρ άμεινον έξηγεϊσθαι ή ώς ό 'Αλέξανδρος ύπέλαβεν αυτόν λέγειν. Freudenthal, taking for granted that Syrianus is here referring to Alexander's commentary, draws the following inferences: (i) Syria-nus is disagreeing with Alexander, who must have had the same read-ing as the MSS of the Metaph.; (ii) Ps.-Alexander, seeing the Alex-ander reference, copies the passage from Syrianus without realizing that he is siding with Syrianus against Alexander. But this interpreta-tion is surely unwarranted. To begin with, it has been pointed out that Syrianus did not know Alexander's commentary on M-N. Sec-ondly, even if Syrianus is referring to an "Alexander" commentary different from our Ps.-Alexander, there is no reason to think that the alleged "Alexander" had the same text as the MSS of the Metaph. Syrianus states that his explanation (ουτω γάρ άμεινον έξηγεϊσθαι) is better than "Alexander's," which is prima facie evi-dence that he saw no difference between his text of 1087 b 12 and that of "Alexander." Thirdly, it is possible to interpret Syrianus' remark as a criticism of the extant Ps.-Alexander. The latter argues that Aristotle criticizes Plato for not stating that the dyad of the great and the small, though one in number and as matter, is "many" in definition. He says "many" probably because he thought that "the great and the small" is ambiguous. It is to this that Syrianus seems to object; he believes that Aristotle's point against Plato is that the lat-ter failed to point out that the dyad of the great and the small, while one in number, is two in definition. In other words, he places empha-sis on the word "dyad." This interpretation makes perfect sense and only requires the assumption, granted by Freudenthal and others, that in this case one of the commentators depends on the other. In

35 Cf. W.D.Ross, Aristotle's Metaphysics, II, corr. ed. Oxford 1953, 470-471, who, however, misunderstood the Ps.-Alexander's comment.



228 LEONARDO TARAN

addition, while we have seen that Syrianus thought he was correct-ing "Alexander" and that his objection was to Alexander's "many," it is unlikely that Ps.-Alexander, if he copied Syrianus, would have said "many" instead of "two." In short, in this case the evidence favors the dependence of Syrianus on Ps.-Alexander and not vice versa.

If this is so, another piece of evidence is decisively in favor of this interpretation of the relation between the two commentaries. In Metaph. 1080 b 11-16 Aristotle states that οί μεν say that there are two kinds of numbers separate from the sensibles, ideal and mathe-matical numbers, whereas others (oi δέ) posited mathematical num-ber only as the first of entities and as separate from the sensibles. Comparison with Metaph. 1028 b 19-27 shows, without question, that by oi μεν Aristotle means Plato and by oi δέ Speusippus. The Ps.-Alexander (745,20-32) identifies oi μεν with Plato, but mistak-enly states that οί δέ refers to Xenocrates. The same identifications are made by Syrianus (122,11-23), who on both occasions cites them as the opinion of "Alexander". But as it is most improbable that Alexander, in view of 1028 b 19-27, would have made such a mis-take, the unavoidable inference is that Syrianus knew and is depen-dent on the extant commentary of Ps.-Alexander, which he took to be by Alexander himself. And all the mistaken interpretations of the Platonistic doctrines common to Syrianus and Ps.-Alexander are to be explained by the dependence of the former on the latter.

These inferences are reinforced by the following facts. Two things are noteworthy in Ps.-Alexander's commentary: the name Alexander is used in propositions where examples are introduced, and sometimes Alexander is referred to as ό Άφροδισιεύς or simply Άφροδισιεύς. Neither of these two things are found in the genuine works of Alexander, including his commentary on Metaph. Α-Δ.36

Nor are they found in Syrianus' commentary on books Β-Γ. But both appear in his commentary on M-N, and this is surely a strong indication that Syrianus knew and used the extant commentary of the Ps.-Alexander, which he mistook for that of Alexander.37

36 Bonitz attempts to explain these facts by referring to Alexander's own use of the first person. But that is quite different from citing the name Alexander in examples. Nothing like this is found in Alexander's genuine works.

" For "Alexander" in examples, [Alexander], In Metaph., 448,21; 466,17; etc. with Syrianus, In Metaph., 90,25. For Άφροδισιευς cf. [Alexander], 532,8 sqq. with Syrianus, 100,4 and 10; 165,22. In 100,6 Syrianus calls Alexander ό νεώτερος




If we take these facts into account, and if we recall that the Ps.-Alexander transcribes a passage of Alexander's Quaestiones without any indication that he is citing38 and refers to the first part of the commentary as if it were his own work,39 there can be no question that he was a forger.40

The arguments given above suffice to reject Praechter's attempt to ascribe the commentary on E-N to Michael Ephesius mainly on the basis of its language, even apart from the fact that several of his interpretations are faulty.41 For similar reasons one may also dismiss

'Αριστοτέλης ό εξηγητής, and there is no reason to suspect these words, as Kroll does. Cf. note 34 above.

38 Compare [Alexander], In Metaph. 685,28-687,22 with Alexander, Quaestiones I. 1,2,20-4,26. Since Ps.-Alexander did not have access to the second part of Alexan-der's commentary on the Metaph. it ought to be clear that he borrowed the passage from the Quaestiones and that, since he does not cite it as Alexander's, he must have been a forger. Bonitz's attempt to find the evidence compatible with the ulti-mate Alexandrian authorship of the extant commentary on E-N fails.

" Cf. [Alexander], In Metaph. 615,14-15; 741,35-37; etc. 40 The Ps.-Alexander also refers to other works by Alexander as if they were his own,

and he may have had access to them just as he obviously did have to the Quaes-tiones and to the commentary on Metaph. Α-Δ. But though these other works are lost, the evidence cited above in notes 38-39 suffices to reject Praechter's conten-tion that the Ps.-Alexander was not a forger. (Cf. also note 41 below).

41 Thus many of the syntactical peculiarities that Praechter takes to be characteristic of Michael Ephesius, for example εί with subjunctive, δταν with indicative, nomi-native absolute, etc. are well attested many centuries before Michael's lifetime, cf. L.Taran, Asclepius of Tralles, Commentary to Nicomachus' Introduction to Arith-metic, Philadelphia 1969, 22 with references ( = Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. N. S., 59. 4). Praechter op.cit. (note 16 above), 884 attempts to explain why these linguistic peculiarities occur more seldom in the commentary on Metaph. E-N than they do in the other works he ascribes to Michael: "Das erklärt sich aber sehr einfach daraus, daß dieser Kommentar bestimmt wurde, die Fortsetzung zu dem des Alex-anders zu bilden." But this alleged explanation would really contradict Praechter's notion that the Ps.-Alexander was not a forger. For if he had not intended that his commentary should be taken for that of Alexander, why should the Ps.-Alexander have bothered (without succeding!) to suppress non-Alexandrian linguistic peculi-arities? Praechter's argument based on the philosophic content of the works he ascribes to Michael should be dismissed for similar reasons, that is, they are not sufficiently peculiar to justify ascribing the commentary on E-N to Michael. More-over, if Michael borrowed from Syrianus and did not intend to be a forger and if Syrianus was considered an important authority, why is it that the Ps.-Alexander does not mention him; does not in fact mention by name any philosopher later than Sosigenes and Alexander himself? Finally, given the many references to other commentaries on Aristotle that the author of the commentary on E-N makes (cf.



230 L E O N A R D O TARÄN

Merlan's attempt to prove that Ps.-Alexander depends on Simplicius, assuming as it does the correctness of Praechter's thesis.42 The Ps.-Alexander was either earlier than Syrianus or a contemporary of his.43 He presumably produced his commentary on Metaph. E-N because that part of Alexander's work had been lost or was at any rate very scarce at that time.44 The Arabs knew Alexander's commen-tary on Metaph. Λ or parts of it, and Averroes still made use of it in the XII cent.45 It is possible that Asclepius and Simplicius in the VI

note 40 above), we would have to infer that Michael wrote commentaries on most of the Aristotelian corpus! Cf. addendum.

42 P. Merlan, Ein Simplikios-Zitat bei Pseudo-Alexandros und ein Plotinos-Zitat bei Simplikios, in: R h M 84 (1935), 154-160; reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, Hildes-h e i m - N e w York 1976, 412-418, on the basis of the parallel between Simplicius, In De Cael. 382,8 sqq. and [Alexander], In Metaph. 706,31 sqq. and on the ground that part of the doctrine reported comes f rom Alexander himself (cf. Simplicius, 380,5 sqq.), whom Simplicius then partly opposes, infers that either Simplicius depends on the Ps.-Alexander or vice versa. And taking for granted that Ps.-Alex-ander is Michael Ephesius chooses the latter alternative. Merlan's interpretation, however, cannot be right if the Ps.-Alexander is earlier than, or contemporary with Syrianus, as was argued above. And so one should have to conclude that Simplicius used Ps.-Alexander's commentary on Metaph. E-N and mistook it fo r the commen-tary of Alexander, just as Syrianus did. In De Cael. 503,33-34 Simplicius says τόν τε Ά λ ε ξ α ν δ ρ ο ν και τον Π ο ρ φ ύ ρ ω ν . . . έν τα ΐ ς εις τό Λ της Μεταφυσικής σχολαϊς . If he really had access to such a work by "Alexander," what he says must be explained on the assumption that he was acquainted with [Alexander], In Metaph. 705,39-706,15, fo r the parallelism of the two texts in their reports on Sos-igenes suggests that Simplicius is dependent on the Ps.-Alexander, whom he has mistaken for the genuine Alexander. In short, then, it seems more probable than not that Simplicius was acquainted not with the second part of Alexander's com-mentary but with that of the Ps.-Alexander (at least on book A). One must add that, pace Merlan, the parallelisms he alleges may be explained by the dependence of Ps.-Alexander and Simplicius on Alexander's commentary on Aristotle's Cael. But if one of the extant commentators is dependent on the other, it must be Simpli-cius who borrowed from the Ps.-Alexander and not vice versa.

43 There is no evidence to date the Ps.-Alexander beyond saying that he must have lived later (probably considerably later) than Alexander and that he cannot be later than Syrianus. Since he was at least under the influence of Neopythagoreanism and Neoplatonism (cf. references in note 18 above), he must have lived closer to the V cent, than to the II cent. A. D.

44 If Alexander's commentary was divided into two volumes (either by him or later) it is possible that the second volume (and also part of the first?) was lost or became very scarce before Syrianus' time.

45 The commentary on Μ or Ν was apparently also transmitted to the Arabs but appears to have been lost before the time of Alfarabi. Cf. note 14 supra.



Syrianus and Ps.-Alexander's Commentary on Metaph. E-N 23ί

cent, had access at least to parts of Alexander's commentary on E-N, but there is no strong evidence to that effect.46

Ps.-Alexander did not have access to the lost part of Alexander's commentary on the Metaph. and was presumably under the influ-ence of Neoplatonism.47 But neither fact deprives his commentary of the importance it should have despite its shortcomings. And it is noteworthy that on several occasions this author has offered the cor-rect explanation of Aristotle's text in cases where the later commen-tators, including Ross, have gone wrong.48

The main conclusions of this study are two: (a) Neither Ps.-Alex-ander nor Syrianus had access to Alexander's lost commentary on Metaph. E-N. (b) For his commentary on books M-N Syrianus made use of Ps.-Alexander's commentary, which he mistook for the work of Alexander himself.

Addendum to notes 20 and 41: The scholion cited by Rose (cf. note 20 above) occurs in Michael's commentary on Parv. Nat. (CAG XXII 1) 149,8-16 τά μεν ούν Περί ζφων μορίων και πορείας, ετι τά Περί μνήμης και άναμνήσεως, Περί ζφων τε κινήσεως, και Περί ζφων γενέ-σεως, τά τε Περί μακροβιότητος και βραχυβιότητος, και σύν τούτοις τά περί γή-

46 On Simplicius cf. note 42 above. The case of Asclepius is more complicated. In his commentary on Metaph. Ζ he mentions Alexander three times: 408,5; 408,20; 428,13. The third reference is probably not significant for the point at issue. But in the first two Asclepius cites opinions of Alexander which are not found in the Ps.-Alexander. And so it is possible that he knew the second part of Alexander's com-mentary or part of it. But caution is indicated in drawing such an inference because of the nature of Asclepius' commentary. It is based on Ammonius' lectures; and, whereas Asclepius in the commentary on Α-Γ has introduced quotations and para-phrases of Alexander, in the commentary on Δ there are only two such references, there are none in that on E, and the three mentioned above in that on Z. Hence, it is possible that Ammonius or Asclepius may have known only a few Alexandrian scholia on Z.

47 Cf. references in note 18 above. Two passages point to oral teaching: [Alexander], In Metaph. 610,14-15 οΰτω μεν ούν ό ημέτερος καθηγεμών έξηγήσατο and 716,26-27 οΰτω μεν ούν ό ημέτερος καθηγεμών τό παρόν έξηγεΐτο χωρίον. But one cannot simply infer that the whole commentary depends on oral teaching. If it does, however, the distinction between διάνοια and λέξις (cf. e.g. 499,31-32), of which Praechter makes so much, should be explained as a reflection of such oral teaching.

48 Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1090 b 2 ό έναντιούμενος λόγος with [Alexander], 814,37-38 and 1090 b 32 with [Alexander], 817,1-5. Cf. Cherniss, op.cit. (note 30 above), 45-46, and 46 with notes 1 and 4 ( = Selected Papers, 432-433).




ρως και νεότητος, ούτως έμοι σεσαφήνιοται κατά δύναμιν. παραιτοΟμαι δέ τους έντυγχάνοντας, εΐ μεν εύρίσκοιέν τινα έκ τούτων ώφέλειαν, πολλήν έχειν χ ά ρ ι ν εί δ' ου, αλλά γε ούδέ βλάβη τις αΰτοϊς έκ τούτων γενησεται. γέγραπται δέ μοι και εις τά Μετά τά φυσικά έξ αύτοΟ τοΟ ζητα Κως τοΟ νϋ. λοιπόν δ' έστι τό Περί χρωμάτων, δπερ ην δώη θεός, άπ' άλλης αρχής σαφηνίσομεν. These, the final words of the commentary, are omitted by one MS, namely P, so that they may not be by Michael at all. Moreover, the reference to the commentary on Z-N looks like a later insertion, coming as it does after the list of the commentaries already written and immediately before the commentary on Περί χρωμάτων, which is announced as a future task. It would be more than strange if Michael had mentioned almost as an afterthought what would have been in fact his most important work. Notice also the (in the context) superfluous αύτοΟ.

It is also noteworthy that Michael's commentaries were probably completed by 1138 and not written before 1118 (cf. reference in note 5 above). But whereas the ascription to Michael by a second hand in A cannot be earlier than the XIII cent., there is no such ascription in L ( = Laurentianus 87,12), a MS that Cavallo with good reason dates to the end of the XI cent. Cf. D. Harlfinger, Zur Überlieferungsge-schichte der Metaphysik, in: fetudes sur la Metaphysique d'Aristote. Actes du VTC Sym-posium Aristotelicum, publies par P.Aubenque, Paris 1979, 7-36, esp. 9, n. 6. And even if the MS is of the XII cent., as Harlfinger believes, it still must have been written early in that century, which would by itself render unlikely the ascription of the sec-ond part of the commentary to Michael. Moreover, several mistakes, variant readings, and cases of faulty word separation in the second part of the commentary are to be explained on the assumption that they originated in capital handwriting: cf. e. g. Hay-duck's critical apparatus on 483,28; 492,26-27; 504,22; 506,1,27; 509,8; 511,3; 517,2; 561,1-2; 582,5; 666,11; 674,3; 692,34; 715,22; 744,18; 769,33; 775,23; 790,32; 791,6; 805,27; 822,11; 823,28-29; 825,16. The cumulative force of these pas-sages shows that the second part of the commentary must have been composed at least several centuries before Michael's lifetime.

In short, then, the evidence that Michael wrote a commentary on Metaph. Z-N (or E-N) is not strong. But even if he did, the extant commentary by the Ps.-Alexan-der cannot be his work. It is possible, however, that Michael annotated a copy of Ps.-Alexander's commentary, and that this fact was later mistaken by some as an indica-tion of authorship.



kommentierung, Überlieferung, nachleben () || syrianus and pseudo- alexander’s commentary on...

Documents