Alexander of Aphrodisias on Sou1 as Fonn

378 Pages·2000·29.01 MB·English

Alexander of Aphrodisias on Sou1 as Fonn
(de anima 1-26 Br.)
I M ~Ve niaminovna Kupreeva
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Philosophy Doctor
Graduate Department of Philosophy
University of Toronto
O Copyright by Inna Veniaminovna Kupreeva 1999
National Library Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services seMces bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Welüngton
OttawaûN K 1 A W OltawaON K1AûN4
Canada canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la
National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distriiute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
copies of îhis thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/£ilm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts &om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
Alexander of Aphrodtias on Sou1 as Form (de anima 1-26 Bruns)
Ph.D. 1999 uina Veniaminovna Kupteeva, Graduate Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto
(Thesis Abstract).
In his treatise de anima Aiexander outlined a theory of soui which does not have an exact analogue in the writings
of Anstotle. Particuiarly unusual is his treatment of the four elements of traditional cosmology (fire, air, water,
earth) as substances composed of form and matter and the notion that forma1 principle in al1 the natural substances
is sornrhow dependent on the fomis of the ingredient elements.
P.Moraux claimed in his doctorai thesis in the early forties that this theory contradicts Aristotle's rnetaphysics of
form-substance. The opinions of scholars about this theory have been divided ever since: those who regard
Alexander as a materiafist have cited it as an evidence of his materialism, those who treat him as an Anstotelian
have tended to explain its unusual tenor by the goals of anti-Platonist poiemic.
No anernpt has been made to study the main argument of the theory in full and for its own sake, althougb such a
study seems to be indicated by the controversial status of the theory. The present thesis filIs this lacuna, off&ng an
analytical exposition of the theory, with a study of the sources. It is show that the unusual doctrinat points are
parts of his system in which he tries to reconcile the interna1 tensions of Aristotle's ontology.
In the first chapter 1 review the state of the question. In the second chapter 1 deal with the problem of Aristotelian
sources for Ale.uander's theory of form. In the third chapter 1 present the de anima theory of soul as form, showing
that the concepts that lack 'Aristotelian' history are parts of Alexander's systematic exegesis in the course of which
he uses conceptua1 tools of later schools (especially Stoic). ïhe fourth chapter is devoted to the question, whether
Alexander was comrnitted to the Aristotelian notion of form-substance. 1 answer in the afEmative, showing that
the notion of 'enmattered form' presupposes spcific criteria of substantiaiity. In the fifi chapter 1 analyse
Alexander's presentation of the attributes of the soul and his critique of the 'harmony' theory in relation to the
problem of 'compatibility' of the two concepts of form (compIex form of an elernental mixture and individuai form
of a living being). 1 argue that Alexander accounts for compatibility with the help of a version of 'emergentist
thesis'.
-
ïhe Appendices conta.t ranslations of eight school treatises fkom the Greek (manrissa 1 8) (App.I), four
treatises fiom the Arabic (App.11) and a study of the use of the terms ika& and Ulrtb~min~ th e extant works of
Alexander (App. III).
1 am grateful to Prof. Brad hwood, for scholarly guidance and sound advice at al1 the stages of my doctoral snidies,
for help in defming the topic of my thesis and for agreeing to direct it when the topic was finally formulated in the
way the least expected by everyone. His supervision, combining scholarly rigor with open-rnindedness, and
philosophical insight with philologicd tenacity, has been most beneficial for my work.
The thesis wouid not have been completed in its present fom without the extensive help of Prof. RW.Sharples,
to whom I owe very special thaaks. He read the fint clraft, made numerous crucial comments and criticisms,
eliminating a number of howlers and alerting me to the problems and publicaiions which 1 myself could have
overlooked., generously shared with me his astounding knowledge of the subject in the discussion of textual and
exegetical difficuities and allowed me to use his own as yet unpublished works.
I want to thank Prof. A.Madigan for the most painstaking reading he gave my thesis as its external examiner and
for corning to Toronto for the oral exarn. I am gratefiil to Prof. D.L. Bladc for her help with Arabic sources for this
thesis and on numerous other occasions. Rof. J.Magee 6rst introduced me to both the Greek Aristotelian
commentators and to the problems in textual criticism; 1 am also grateful to him for the carefùi reading of the text
and many improving comments. 1 am much indebted to Prof L.P. Gerson who read both the first and the final
drafts, for his comments and for the discussions of the problems in Aristotle's philosophy.
Parts of this work were presented at the M AC entrai Division Meeting in 1998, at the graduate seminar in
ancient philosophy at King's College London and at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in 1998.1 am
gratefid to the audiences and particuiarly to Prof. SKaye, Prof. J.Ellis, Rof. RSorabji and Prof. S.K.Strange, for
helpfiif discussions. 1 am very much obliged to Prof. V.Caston for allowing me to use several of his works before
they were out.
1 am grateN to Prof. T.M. Robinson for the extracurricuiar reading of Tirnaeus and for the discussions of the
problems in Greek language and philosophy, and to Prof. S.M.Rubarth for discussions of the problems in stoicism.
The responsibility for the use 1 made of ali the advice and for the remaining mors and defects is, of course, solely
mine.
1 shouid like to acknowledge my debt to my teachers of Greek and Latin at Moscow University, the late Prof.
A.Ch.Kozarzhevsky, Prof. NAAverintseva and Pr0f.Yu.A. Shichalin; to my teachers of Arabic Prof.
J.R.Blackburn, Prof. H.Dajani-Shakeel and Prof. M.E.Marmm of the University of Toronto and to Prof.V.Brown
to whom 1 owe what knowledge 1 have of palaeography. I am much indebted to ProfAS.McGrade and the
Department of Philosophy of the University of Connecticut, where my interest in the Aristotelian philosophy of
mind took shape.
The work was partly subsidised by the Co~aughSt cholarship and the Open Fellowship of the University of
Toronto. The TLG searches were done on the facilities of the Department of CIassics and Leonard Library of the
Wycliffe Coiiege, University of Toronto. 1 should like to thank Ms, Jane Lynch of the Interlibrary Loan of the
Robarts Library and Ms. Caroline Suma of the Library of the Pontifical ïnstitute of Medieval Studies for being so
helpfiil on many important occasions. Speciai thanks are due to Mr.Will Buschert, the Webmaster of Philosophy
Department, for his help with installing the Greek fonts and ivith many other cornputer issues.
Finally, 1 am very gratefùi to my family back in Russia for their love and support. The dedication is to my
grandmother, M.K. Volkova, on her 83rd birthday.
Toronto,
February 26,1999.
List of Abbreviations
AD: Alessundro di Afrodisia. L 'anima. Traduzione, introduzione e cornmento a cura di
P.Accattino e P.L.Donini, Rorna-Bari: Laterza, 1 996.
AGPh: Archivjiïr Geschichte der Philosophie.
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: Geschichte und Kulw Rom im
Spiegel der neueren Forschung / hrsg.von H.Ternporini, Berlin, New York : W. de
Gniyter, 1972,
BICS: Bullet in of the Instit ute for Classical Shrdies, University of London.
CAG: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.
CPF: Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini.
CQ: Classicul Quarteri).
CR: Classical Review.
DA: Aristotle de anima.
DC: Aristotle de caelo.
DG: Doxographi Graeci.
DK: H.Die1.s. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechi sch und de~ tschh. rsg. von W.
Kranz
DL: Diogenes Lae~ius.V itae philosophorum.
EH: Entretiens Hardt.
EN: Anstotle Ethica Nicornachea.
FHSG: W.W. Fortenbaugh, P.M.Huby, R.W.Sharples, D.Gutas. Theophrasius of Eresuî:
Sources for His Life. Writings. Thought and Influence. Leiden: Btill, 1992.
GA: Anstotle de generatione animalium.
GC: Anstotle de generatione et corruptione.
JHI: Journal of the history of ideas.
LS: A.A.Long, D.N.Sedley, The Hellenistic philosophers. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge
University Press, 1987.
LSJ: Greek-English îexicon. H.G. Liddell, R.Scott, HStuart Jones, R.McKenzie. 9th ed.,
augrn.
MA: Arktotle, de motu animalium.
Meta.: Aristotle Metaphysics.
Mere.: Aristot le Meteorologica.
OSAP: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy.
PA: Aristotle. de partibus animalium.
PAS: Proceedings ofAristotelim Society.
RE: Real-Encyclopadie der klassischen AItertumswissenschafi (Pauly-Wissowa, Kroll)
REG: Revue des études grecques.
RhM: Rheinisches MtlreumfYr Philologie.
R USCH: Rutgers University Studies in Classicaf Huntanities.
LüP: The Southern journal of philosophy.
SVF: Stoicorum veterum fiapentu.
VDI: Vesmik drevnei istorii. (Jownal of ancient history). Moscow, Russian Academy of
Sciences.
ZB: F. W.Zimmemann, H.V.Brown, 'Neue arabische Übersetzungstexte aus dem Bereich
der spatantiken griechischen Philosophie', Der Ham 50/2 1973, pp. 3 13-324.
ZDMG:Z eitschrift der deutschen morgenlandschen Gesellschaft.
Table of Contents.
Table of Cotttents, 1
Introduction. 4
Chupter 1. Alextander on the notion of souL Status quaestionk 16
1.1. XlXth century scholarship. 16
1.2. Moraux 1942. 18
1.8. Some recent discussions. 44
1.8.1. H.M.Robinson 1991. 44
1.8.2. Sharples 19 94, 46
1.8.3. Accattino 1995. 47
1.8.4. Caston 1998. 48
Chupter 2. Aristotelian sources of A laandet's theory Of form 51
2.1. Contemporary interpretations of Aristotie's concept of form. 51
2.2. Hylomorphic problem in Aristotle' accounts of generation. 57
2.2.1. Genesis 1: Physics Lm. 58
2.2.1.1. The principles ofc hange. 59
2.2.1.2. Form-nature. (Physics II) 66
2.2.1.3. The mechanism of change. (Phys. III 1-3) 70
2.2.2. Genesk II: the elements. 75
2.2.2.1 The problem of simple genesis (GCi ). 76
2.2.2.2. Growth (GC1 5). 79
2.2.2.3. Elemental generation. (GCI I) 82
2.2.3. GenesrS III. (Me[uphysicsZ 7-9) 85
2.2.3.1. Ti i;xour~~ov. 86
2.2.3.2. Fom as the matrîx of generation, 88
Chapter 3. Alexander's theory of forma1 constitution. 96
.
3.1. Alexander's expository method 96
3.2. Form and matter: the case of the simple bodies. (225.7, 14) 103
3.3. "Bodies act upon and are acted npon by bodies by way of incorporealsn(7, 9-14). 115
-
3.4. Simple and composite forms. (7'14 8,S). 122
3.5. Natural Variety of Forms. (8J 11'13) 131
3 -5.1. Scala naturae. 13 1
-
3.5.2. Plants. (825 926). 133
3.5.2. Animals and natural variety. 138
Chapter 4. Souf us "enmatteredf onn": logic and ontoiogy. 143
4.l.Aristotelian background of the dialecticai proofs. (11,14-1536) 144
-
4.1.1. & &IIU(~IY: three ways (1 1, 14 12, 7). 144
-
4.1.2. Argwnent '%om &Cpyerar". (12.7 13,8 Br.) 148
41.3. ri & w: nine ways. 152
4.1.3.1. Alexander's list. 152
4.1.3.2. Alexander's reiiltations. 158
4.1.3.3. Plotinus' testirnony (Enn.IV 3.) 161
-
41.4. Aristotelian definition of the sou1 (15,26 16, 18). 168
4.2. Form-substance in the school treatises. 171
4.2.1 .The problem in the Categories ( 6u ho~er&q~ vs. K~'~KE~&ou) . 172
4.2.2. Form and the problem of "subjecthood". 176
4.2.3. The problem of substantiaiity. 183
4.3. Logic and ontology of enmattered form. 194
4.3.1. The logic of enmattered fom. quuesr. 1 26. 194
4.3.2. Universal predication (quaest. 1 1 1 ). 197
4.3.3. Matter vs. genus: seven distinctions (quuest. II 28) 207
Chapter 5. Soul as &a+q. 218
5.1. Arguments for the attributes of the soul. 218
S. 1.1. Arguments for incorporeality. 218
5.1.1.1. "Frorn distinction between thing and quality ( fom)." 219
5.1 . 1 2. .'Parts". 22 1
5.1.1.3. "Frorn theory of generation." 225
5.1.1.4. "Against one-element theories". 227
5.1 2. Inseparability. (20,26-21 3). 232
5.1.3. Irnmobility per se: (against both): 2 1,24-24, 17. 236
5.1.3.1. Some preliminaries. 237
5.1.3.2. The subject of movernent. 239
5.1.3.3. The problem of agency. 243
5.2. "Harmony" theory. 252
5.2.1. "Harmony" theory before Alexander. 253
5.2.2. Alriander's arguments. 258
5.2.3.1. "Hedth andogy. 258
5.2.2.2. Two senses of ippovia. 265
5.2.2.3. BodiIy mixture is not a harmony. (26,3-11) 269
5.3. Sou1 as form: synthetic tbeory. 272
5.3.1. Fonn, matter and supervenience. 273
5.3.2, Alexander's emergentist thesis. 28 1
The source of for- (instead of a conclusion). 286
Appendk 1. Translafioiiso f some school heatkes referred to in the thesis (mantissa 1-8). 288
m î k a2 . On the intellect 296
mantissa 3: The soul is incorporeai. 308
rnanfissa 4: Faculn'es of the soul are many r&ar than one. 316
mantissa 5: Sud is not in ai subject. 319
rnantissad: Qualities me not bodies 324
mantissa 7. Against those who say fhat none of fitef our bodies fhat we call "elemntsns ubsrSrs in
its proper state. 329
manfissa 8. Air is natwaliy hot. 332
Appendix II. TransIations of the Arabic versions of sehool treatises referred to in the the&
334
1. The îreatise of Alaander on the sub~tratep~ri vation and comiiig to be and the solution of the
question offheo ldphiîosophers &y which they denied the coming to be, from Arisiotle's book "On
understanding nature". * 334
II. Treatîse of Alexander of Aphrodisias (stahisg fhat) growth and augmentation indeed have fo do
with form and not matter. * 338
UI. The treatke of Alexander on the opposites th& they are the principles, according fo Aristotie. *
W.T 'eatise ofAlexander ofAphrodkias on that matter is no2 a genus, and what is common in
them and in what fhey d m .* 344
Appendix III. ka& and hOmwi5 in Aleuander. 349
1. Aristotle. 349
2. The Stoics. 35 1
3. Alexander. 354
Cited Works. 363
(a) Ancient sources. 363
(b) Scholarly works. 363
Introduction.
P. Moraux, in his 1942 work on Alexander's noetic, claimed that the dochine presented by LUexander in the
beginning of his treatise de anima in fact is not Aristotelian: it is a materialist theory which goes against Anstotle's
theory of soul and metaphysics of substance. Alexander's introduction of the k tp rinciples of Aristotelian theory
of form is indeed not quite typical for what we know of Aristotle. AristotIe in his de anima talks fiom the beginning
about living things. Alexander begins with the elements: fue, air, earfh and water. He says that al1 natural
substances are composed of form and matter: the elements are composed of prime matter and elemental qualities,
which make up their forrns; composite things are composed of elemental mixtures and the complex forms of these
mixtures which are made up by the forms of the ingredient elements. The more complex the mixture the more
complex its fonn (for it is made up by the elemental forms), and, accordingly, the higher the type of being to which
it belongs. Thus, plants are more perfect beings tfian rocks, animais more perfect than plants, and man is the most
perfect creature of al1 animals, in accordance with the principle that greater complexity of elemental mixture
underlies the more complex activities.
Moraau thought this to be ouaight materiahm having nothing to do with the Aristotelian theory. He called this
doctrine 'theory of the origin of the soul' and treated it as an apocryphal writing by someone who was good at a
humble job of commenting upon the works of philosophical past masters but totally out of place when he attempted
to emulate them. Although latcr Moraux changed his opinion on many details of Alexander's work and sources, he
seerns to never have completely recovered tkom this fm impression that he got of Alexander's theory, namely that
Alexander somehow fdls short of the 'right' Aristotelianism.
Moraux's work was pioneering. Since that the we have learnt more about the works of Aiexander and his
circle, due to the works by Moraux himself, P.L.Donini, RW.Sharples, RB.Todci, PAccattino and others, and due
to the general rise of interest in the post-Arktotelian Peripatetic tradition.' The publications of translations of
Alexander's short treatises and extant commentaries, as well as of the works of his school, have re-introduced us to
Alexander the complex thinker, shrewd logician, well versed both in details of Aristotelian teaching and
contemporary school debates, sometimes controversial but never simple-minded or indifferent to the docbinal
points he comments upon.
Considerable work has aiready been done on Alexander's de anima. We have now two vernacular translations of
the treatise (with a new one forthcoming in Prof. Sorabji's 'Engiish CAG' series), two dissertation-length studies
of the treatise and a nurnber of hi&-quality scholarty articles and contributions dealing with the philosophical
aspects of his psychology. The fint chaptcr of this thesis contains a review of this work and most recent discussions
of the problems of Alexander's theory of the soui. From this review 1 conclude that Moraux's womes were not
ungrounded because apparendy the text of de anima does contain statements not found in Arktotle. On the other
hanci, it has been noticed that the main principles are formulated by Alexander in a quite orthodox Aristotelian way,
so the view of those who regard Alexander as a tnie Aristotelian apparently gets textual support fiom the same
body of texts. This seems to indicate that in order to determine the type of theory of form that it really supports,
Alexander's argument has to be studied closely, in full and for its own sake. This is the main goal of my thesis, and
its prevailing genre is therefore that of analytical exposition.
But sincr it is the Aristotelian character of Alexander's teaching that was questioned, it would be useful, prior to
attempting an answer, to consider what exactly is the Aristotelian theory of form with which Alexander's
conception is expected to match in order to qualiq as Aristotelian. 1 am dealing with this problem in the second
chapter.
I begin by considenng the opinions of contemporary scholarship on the problem of form in Aristotie, to discover
that there is no consensus about its interpretation. in fact the ongoing debate between the 'attributivist' and
'substantialist' interpretations of Aristotle's notion of sou1 as form is roughiy dong the same lines dong which the
discussion of Alexander's psychology has been shaped by Moraux's critique. Section 2.1. contairis a bnef review of
literature, in which 1 draw on a ment study by Prof.H.Granger. 1 agree with Prof.Granger that the principle of
hyiomorphism and the theory of form depend on the theory of coming to be. But differently fiom Prof.Granger, 1
think that what we hi in Aristotie is not a unique theory ofgeneration appiicabie to di cases, but severai different
versions of the more basic conception of change, which correspond to different versions of hylomorphism and
different notions of form.
The rest of the chapter is devoted to the anafysis of the three different conceptions of generation: the theory of
change of Physics (considered in subsection 2.2.1 ), the theory of elementai transformations in the treatise On
(Go
Generation and Cornprion (considered in subsection 2.2.2) and the theory of substantial generation found in
Metaphysics Z 7-9 (corrsidered in 2.2.3).
For the review of scholarship tiii mid-eighties see Sharples 1987.
5