Aristotle's categories in the early Roman Empire

298 Pages·2015·1.697 MB·English

by  Griffin, Michael J

OXFORD CLASSICAL MONOGRAPHS
PublishedunderthesupervisionofaCommitteeoftheFaculty
ofClassicsintheUniversityofOxford
TheaimoftheOxfordClassicalMonographseries(whichreplacesthe
OxfordClassicalandPhilosophicalMonographs)istopublishbooksbased
onthebestthesesonGreekandLatinliterature,ancienthistory,and
ancientphilosophyexaminedbytheFacultyBoardofClassics.
’
Aristotle s Categories
in the Early Roman
Empire
MICHAEL J. GRIFFIN
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
#MichaelJ.Griffin2015
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2015
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014951230
ISBN 978–0–19–872473–5
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
Parentibus carissimis
‹(cid:2)(cid:2)’ (cid:3)r(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) K(cid:6) (cid:7)(cid:3)Œ(cid:8)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:2)Ø(cid:6) KçÅ(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)Æ(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5) (cid:7)(cid:5)Œ(cid:3)F(cid:2)Ø(cid:6)
Proclus ap. Olymp. in Phaed. 1.5,16

Preface
ThisstudybeganlifeasadissertationsubmittedtotheUniversityof
Oxfordin2009.Thatdissertationaimed,ratherambitiously,tosettle
aproblemthatHansGottschalkhasneatlyarticulatedasfollows:‘[i]t
wouldbeinterestingtoknowwhytheCategoriescametoexerciseso
muchfascination[inthefirstcenturybce],butthereisnoevidence’
(1987: 1103). Building on the later Neoplatonic sources, especially
Simplicius (c.490–c.560 ce), I hoped to provide evidence for a solu-
tion of that puzzle. Along the way, I reconstructed the long and
complex stratigraphy of commentary on the Categories before Por-
phyry, following (or at least muddling along) in the footsteps of
scholarssuchasPaulMoraux(1973,1984).
Thepresentbookdiffersfromthatdissertationinseveralrespects.
Most importantly, it has benefited from several years of critical
feedback. It has also, for better or worse, been pared down to focus
on a single story. Andronicus of Rhodes, I suggest, rescued the
Categories from obscurity because he believed it was a good begin-
ner’sintroductiontoAristotle’stheoryofdemonstration(I(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:3)Ø(cid:11)Ø(cid:14)).
But contemporary and later philosophers’ confusion regarding its
subject-matter—language,concepts,orreality?—helpedtodrawfur-
therattentiontothetreatise,fosteringthedevelopmentofsubsequent
ancientsemantics.Thosechaptersthatdidnotespeciallycontributeto
thisstoryhavebeendeleted,whilethenewchapter2(Andronicusof
Rhodes)hasbeenheavilyrevisedandexpanded.Chapter3(Eudorusand
Pseudo-Archytas), chapter 4 (Lucius and Nicostratus), and chapter 5
(Athenodorus and Cornutus) have been moderately revised, while
chapter 6 (Boethus of Sidon) has been reduced in scope, since some of
my conclusions in 2009 have been corrected, or improved, by a series
ofrecent,outstandingarticlesandeditedcollectionsonthisperiod(seefor
exampleRashed2013,Chiaradonna2013).Atthetimeofwriting,Iwas
abletomakeonlylimiteduseofthenewcommentaryontheCategor-
ies found in the Archimedes Palimpsest (Chiaradonna, Rashed, and
Sedley 2013), but I have been able to add references to several sup-
portingpassagesfromthattext.
Ihaveincurredmanydebtsofgratitudeinthedevelopmentofthis
project. I am especially indebted to Tobias Reinhardt, under whose
viii Preface
kindandpatientsupervisionthedissertationgraduallywounditsway
intobeing,andtoRichardSorabjiandPeterAdamson,whocarefully
examined the entire manuscript at the dissertation stage, and have
continuedtodiscussrevisionswithmeindetail.Iamalsogratefulto
ProfessorSorabjiformanyyearsofconversationsaboutthephiloso-
phy of the commentators, which have greatly expanded my know-
ledge and appreciation of the period. The dissertation project was
originally suggested by Michael Frede, my faculty adviser for the
M.Phil. at Oxford from 2004 to 2006, without whom it would never
havebegun.BenMorison,whokindlyagreedtoserveasmymentor
for the Press, has been truly generous with his time and insightful
commentary.Iamalsoindebtedtoseveralcarefulreadersofmultiple
drafts of the MS or individual chapters, including Jonathan Barnes,
Sylvia Berryman, George Boys-Stones (who also kindly shared with
me helpful unpublished work), Michael Chase, Riccardo Chiara-
donna, Myrto Hatzimichali, George Karamanolis, Stephen Menn,
MarwanRashed,DavidSedley,RobertSharples,RichardSorabji,and
Thomasz Tiuryn, as well as participants in conferences and lectures
held at the University of Toronto, University College London, and
the University of Trier. I am also grateful to Annie Hewitt for her
painstaking and careful editorial work on the manuscript, which has
significantlyimprovedthefinalproductandsavedmefromnotafew
embarrassingerrors. Noneof these readers, of course, canbe faulted
fortheremainingmishapsanderrors,whicharesolelymyown.
My graduate work at Oxford was generously supported by the
Commonwealth Scholarship Commission of the United Kingdom
andtheSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilofCanada.
ThedevelopmentofthisbookwasalsosponsoredbyanInsightGrant
fromtheSocialSciencesandResearchCouncilofCanada.Iamvery
grateful to both bodies for their kind support from the beginning to
the end of this process. Last but by no means least, I would like to
thank my parents, Bruce and Jennifer, who have made everything
possible,andsustainedthiseffortfromarchētotelos.
MichaelJ.Griffin
TheUniversityofBritishColumbia
December2013
Contents
Abbreviations xii
1. Introduction 1
I. ThisStudy:TheCategoriesintheEarlyRomanEmpire 7
RoadMap 8
Goals,Methods,andMaterials 14
II. TheStructureoftheCategories 16
PartA. RediscoveryandEndorsement:
AndronicusandEudorus
2. AndronicusofRhodes 21
I. LifeandHistory 23
II. WorksandEditorialActivity:Beginningwiththe
Categories 29
III. AndronicusontheCategories 32
IV. Conclusions:Andronicus’relationshiptothe‘ancient
exegetes’ofCategories 72
3. ‘Pythagorean’Support:EudorusandPseudo-Archytas 78
I. EudorusofAlexandria(fl.c.50bce?) 78
LifeandHistory 78
Works 79
Philosophy 80
TreatmentoftheCategories 82
RelationshiptoAndronicus 95
II. Pseudo-Archytas(fl.c.50bce?) 97
PartB. EarlyCriticisms:PlatonistsandStoics
4. LuciusandNicostratus 103
I. UsingtheNeoplatonistSources 106
II. LifeandHistory 108
Lucius 108
Nicostratus 111
III. DistinctPortrayalasCritics 112