¹ Walzer, R., “Porphyry and the Arabic tradition,” in Porphyre, Entretiens Hardt XII (Vandœuvres - Genève, 1965), pp. 275–97; discussion, pp. 298–9. First, Walzer examined the Arabic tradition of the Isagoge (p. 278), and subsequently (pp. 278–83) dealt with a series of Porphyry's writings lost or only fragmentarily extant in Greek, but known to some extent in the Arabic milieu, such as his commentaries on Plato's Republic (n° 6Google Scholar in Beutler, R., Porphyrios, in Paulys Realencyklopädie, 22, 1 [1953];Google Scholar n° 18 in Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta ed. Smith, A., Fragmenta Arabica Wasserstein, D. interpretante, Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana [Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1993]), and on Aristotle's Physics (n° 14 Beutler, n° 6 Smith), De interpretatione (n° 13 Beutler, n° 4 Smith), Nicomachean Ethics (n° 16 Beutler, n° 9 Smith). As for Porphyry's original works lost or only fragmentarily extant in Greek, but preserved to some extent in Arabic, Walzer examined the Φιλóσοϕος ίστορíα (n° 27 Beutler, n° 22 Smith).Google Scholar

² Walzer, “Porphyry and the Arabic tradition,” p. 283, maintained that “The Arabic writer” (i.e., according to Walzer's view, the translator of the Theology from Greek or Syriac into Arabic) “refers to the original as a commentary written by Porphyry, and I cannot see at all why Porphyry should not have written a commentary on eight or more essays of Plotinus – which an unknown late Greek or Syriac writer came to attribute to Aristotle.” This information comes from the incipit of the Preface opening the Theology of Aristotle, repeatedly examined in the past and recent scholarship. For a complete survey see the outstanding Notice byGoogle ScholarAouad, M., “La Théologie d'Aristote et autres textes du Plotinus Arabus,” in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, publié sous la direction de Goulet, R. (Paris, 1989), t. I, pp. 541–90, and especially pp. 546–8, 576–7 on the Preface and its incipit.Google Scholar

³ Walzer, , “Porphyry and the Arabic tradition,” p. 285.Google Scholar In his “Aristotle's active intellect (νοūς ποιητιχóς) in Greek and early Islamic philosophy,” in Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, Atti del Convegno di Roma promosso dall' Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Problemi attuali di scienza e cultura, 198 [Rome, 1974], pp. 423–36,Google ScholarWalzer (p. 432) repeated that the Theology of Aristotle “… is, as is now generally known, a paraphrase of a great part of Plotinus' Essays, attributed, I think correctly, to Porphyry - though rearranged by a later Greek or Syriac editor.”Google Scholar

⁴ See for instance (chronologically arranged) Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe néo-platonicien, avec les fragments des traités περì άγαλμάτων et De regressu animae (Ghent, 1913; repr. Hildesheim, 1964), pp. 130–6;Google ScholarTheiler, W., “Porphyrios und Augustin,” Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geistesw. Kl. 10 (1933): 1–74Google Scholar (also in Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie hrsg. von P. Wilpert, 10 (Berlin, 1966), pp. 160–251;Google ScholarHenry, P., Plotin et l'Occident. Firmicus Maternus, Marius Victorinus, Saint Augustin et Macrobe, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense (Louvain, 1934), passim;Google ScholarCourcelle, P., Les lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe à Cassiodore, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 159, 2^e éd. (Paris, 1948), pp. 226–35 passim, and especially the famous conclusion that in the Latin world from the fourth century onwards “le maître des esprits est Porphyre,” p. 394;Google ScholarDörrie, H., Porphyrios' “Symmikta Zetemata.” Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten (Munich, 1959), passim;Google ScholarFortin, E. L., Christianisme et culture philosophique au cinquième siècle. La querelle de l'âme humaine en Occident (Paris, 1959), pp. 119–54;Google Scholar and chiefly, Hadot, P., Porphyre et Victorinus (Paris, 1968), the most impressive fresco of Porphyry's own options and their influence.Google Scholar See also Smith, A., Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic tradition. A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism (The Hague, 1974);Google ScholarHadot, P., The Harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle according to Porphyry, chapter 6 in Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their Influence ed. by Sorabji, R. (London, 1990), pp. 125–40 (see below, note 10);Google ScholarEbbesen, S., Porphyry's Legacy to Logic: a Reconstruction, chapter 7 in the same volume, pp. 141–72.Google Scholar Porphyry's role in the history of Platonic philosophy has been summarized as follows by Wallis, T. A., Neoplatonism (London, 1972): “It is therefore his influence that predominates in both pagans like Macrobius and Christians like Augustine. (…) it was therefore Porphyry's version of Neoplatonism that dominated the western tradition until Eriugena's ninth-century translation of the Dionysian corpus” (p. 96).Google Scholar

⁵ The evidence offered by Eunapius of Sardis in his Vitae Sophistarum should now be considered along with its exegesis by Saffrey, H.-D. in his masterly essay Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin? Réponse provisoire, in Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, II, par Brisson, L., Charlonneix, J.-L., Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Goulet, R., Grmeck, M. D., Flamand, J.-M., Matton, S., Brien, D. O', Pépin, J., Saffrey, H.-D., Segonds, A.-Ph., Tardieu, M. et Thillet, P., Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquité classique 16 (Paris, 1992), pp. 31–64.Google Scholar

⁶ See, besides the studies I will refer to later on in this paper, Walzer, R., Platonismus in der islamischen Philosophie (arabische Übersetzungen aus dem Griechischen), in Antike und Orient im Mittelalter, Miscellanea Mediaevalia I (Berlin, 1962): 179–95Google Scholar (also in Platonismus in der Philosophie des Mittelalters hrsg. Beierwaltes, von W. [Darmstadt, 1969], pp. 440–61);Google ScholarAltheim, F. - Stiehl, R., “New fragments of Greek philosophers, 2. Porphyry in Arabic and Syriac translation,” East and West, 13 (1962): 3–15.Google Scholar See also van Ess, J., Jüngere orientalistische Literatur zur neuplatonischen Überlieferung im Bereich des Islams, in Parusia. Studien zur Philosophie und zur Problemgeschichte des Platonismus, Festgabe für J. Hirschberger hrsg. von K. Flasch (Frankfurt a.M., 1965): 333–50, p. 338.Google Scholar

⁷ Al-Fārābī, , Kitāb al-ĝam'bayn ra'yay al-hakīmayn Aflātūn al-ilāhī wa-Aristūtālīs ed. by Dieterici, F., Alfarabi's philosophische Abhandlungen aus Londoner, Leidener und Berliner Handschriften herausgegeben (Leiden, 1890), pp. 1–33.Google Scholar This work has been translated into modern languages several times; the most recent translation has been provided by Mallet, D., Farabi. Deux traités philosophiques. L'harmonie entre les opinions des deux sages, le divin Platon et Aristote et De la religion (Damascus, 1989), with introduction and notes. Moraux gewidmet, hrsg. von J. Wiesner (Berlin - New York, 1987), II, pp. 249–85; “Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien. Les préfaces des commentaires sur les Catégories,”Google ScholarRevue de théologie et de philosophie, 124 (1992): 407–25.Google Scholar See also the Excursus by Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Le programme d'enseignement dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes, in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin. I. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet, par Brisson, L., Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Goulet, R., O'Brien, D., Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquité classique 6 (Paris, 1982), pp. 277–80.Google Scholar

⁸ This work is recorded as n° 20 in Beutler's list, and as n° 30 in Smith's.Google Scholar

⁹ Walzer, Porphyry and the Arabic Tradition, pp. 285–94. It is worth mentioning Walzer's perceptive remark that a similar topic in saint Augustine, namely, the idea of the ultimate consistency of the main philosophical tenets in Plato and Aristotle, in all likelihood traces back to a sort of common source in Porphyry.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The masterly study by Hadot, P. quoted at note 5 (originally published in French, under the title L'harmonie des philosophies de Plotin et d'Aristote selon Porphyre dans le commentaire de Dexippe sur les Catégories, in Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, pp. 31–47) first argued that Porphyry's move to avoid discussing the ontological implications of Aristotelian logic in the context of the Organon was intended — at variance with Plotinus — to include Aristotle within the framework of a “concordist” view of Greek philosophy. Ebbesen, Porphyry's legacy to logic, joined with Hadot's analysis. The conclusion that “Aristotle's Categories is adressed to beginners and only treats meaningful words, not beings”Google Scholar(Hadot, The Harmony, p. 126) became standard in the schools of Late Antiquity, as is made clear by the extant late ancient commentaries on the Categories. See on this point note 11 below. Recently, several important studies argued in the same direction as Hadot's evaluation of Porphyry's place in the history of the relationship between Platonism and Aristotelianism in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages.Google Scholar See Strange, S. K., “Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Categories,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung hrsg. Haase, von W., II, 36.2 (Berlin, 1987), pp. 955–74;Google ScholarEvangeliou, C., Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry, Philosophia Antiqua 48 (Leiden, New York, København, Köln, 1988). Saffrey's essay, Pourquoi Porphyre a-til édité Plotin ? helps understanding the reasons of such an attitude. Saffrey presents us with the debate opened, in post-Plotinian times, between Iamblichus and his former teacher Porphyry about the primacy of theurgy or rational philosophy, and convincingly argues that Porphyry's final decision to accomplish Plotinus' wish to have a complete edition of his own treatises was intended to face Iamblichus' position. See alsoCrossRefGoogle Scholarde Libera, A., La querelle des universaux. De Platon à la fin du Moyen Age (Paris, 1996), pp. 34–47; 68–120.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Hadot, I., Le probléme du néoplatonisme alexandrin. Hiéroclés et Simplicius (Paris, 1978); “Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs Chrétiens,” inGoogle ScholarTardieu, M. (ed.) Les règies de I'interprétation, Patrimoines. Religions du Livre (Paris, 1987), pp. 99–122;Google Scholar“La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote,” in Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, Paul Moraux gewidmet, hrsg. von J. Wiesner (Berlin - New York, 1987), II, pp. 249–85;Google Scholar“Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien. Les préfaces des commentaires sur les Catégories,” Revue de théologie et de philosophie, 124 (1992): 407–25.Google Scholar See also the Excursus by Goulet-Caz´, M.-O., Le programme d'enseignement dans les écoles néoplatoniciennes, in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin. I. Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet, par L. Brisson, Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., Goulet, R., O'Brien, D., Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquité classique 6 (Paris, 1982), pp. 277–80.Google Scholar

¹² Hein, C., Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Von der spätantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopädie, Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe XX, Philosophie, Bd. 177 (Frankfurt am Main - Bern - New York, 1985). Hein's work explores the influence in Islamic times of Alexandrian definitions of philosophy and its subdivision, paying special attention to the reading order of the parts of Aristotle's corpus.Google Scholar See also Hugonnard-Roche, H., Introductions syriaques à l'étude de la logique: Àpropos de quelques “Divisions de Porphyre,” in Comprendre et maîtriser la nature au moyen àge. Mélanges d'histoire des sciences offerts à Guy Beaujouan (Genéve-paris, 1994), pp. 385–408;Google Scholar“Les traductions syriaques de l'Isagoge de Porphyre et la constitution du corpus syriaque de logique,” Revue d'histoire des textes, 24 (1994): 293–312;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“Les Catégories d'Aristote comme introduction à la philosophie, dans un commentaire syriaque de Sergius de Reš'ainā († 536),” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 8 (1997): 339–63.Google Scholar For the understanding of the general context of this transmission, it is necessary to report to Daiber, H., “Doxographie und Geschichtsschreibung über griechische Philosophen in islamischer Zeit,”, Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale, 17 (1990): 1–21;Google Scholar“Hellenistische-kaiserzeitliche Doxographie und philosophischer Synkretismus in islamischer Zeit,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung hrsg. von Haase, W. und Temporini, H., II, 36.7 (Berlin-New York, 1994), pp. 4974–92.Google Scholar

¹³ Hein, Definition, pp. 47–56, goes through the Arabic translations of the Isagoge (al-Raqqī, before 820, and al-Dimašqī, before 920), and the Arabic commentaries upon it or utilizations of it (al-Kindī, al-Rāzī, al-Fārābī, Yahyā, ibn 'Adi, his pupil Ibn Suwār, and Ibn al-tTayyib).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Hein, Definition, pp. 131–53, explores the topic of the subdivision of philosophy, tracing the Syriac and Arabic tradition back to the Alexandrian pattern of διαϱεσις as a method to answer the question “what is philosophy.” On Porphyry's influence on this pattern, see especially pp. 134–5, with the useful allusion toGoogle ScholarBoethius' De divisione, and the table at p. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Haneberg, D. B., “Über das neuplatonische Werk Theologie des Aristoteles,” Sitzungsberichte der köningl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1 (1862): 1–12, especially p. 11.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Aouad, , “La Théologie d'Aristote,” pp. 546–8, 576–7 (quoted at note 2).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Rose, V., review of F. Dieterici, Die sogenannte Theologie des Aristoteles aus dem Arabischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen versehen, (Leipzig, 1883),Google ScholarDeutsche Literaturzeitung für Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft, 4 (1883): 843–6.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Badawī, 'A., Aflūţīn 'inda al-'Arab. Plotinus apud Arabes. Theologia Aristotelis et fragmenta quae supersunt, Islamica 20 (Cairo, 1966), p. 3.4–5 (hereafter: Badawī).Google Scholar

¹⁹ In his review of Dieterici's editio princeps of the Theology of Aristotle (Die sogenannte Theologie des Aristoteles aus Arabischen Handschriften zum ersten Mal herausgegeben [Leipzig, 1882]), published in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 37 (1883): 135–8, W. Ahlwardt confined himself to saying he had no reason to deny that the author of the pseudo-Theology of Aristotle belonged to Plotinus's school. In the same vein, Dieterici himself, in his introduction to the quoted German translation of the pseudo-Theology remarked its “plotinische Färbung,” but did not even mention the role Porphyry possibly played in its composition, the only hint at Porphyry being a comparison between the style of the Enneads and the short summaries preserved in Sahrastānī's Kitāb al-milal wa-al-nihal, a style which, according to Dieterici, p. XI, recalls Porphyry's synthetic attitude in the Sentences. (On Šahrastānī's Plotinian quotations,Google Scholar see Aouad, “La Théologie d'Aristote,” pp. 574–78; Šahrastāni's monumental Kitāb al-milal wa-al-nihzal is now accessible in the French translation made by D. Gimaret, J. Jolivet et G. Monnot: Shahrastani, Livre des religions et des sectes. I. Trad. avec introd. et notes par D. Gimaret et G. Monnot, Coll. Unesco d'œuvres représentatives. Série arabe [Leuven, 1986]; II. Trad. avec introd. et notes par J. Jolivet et G. Monnot [Leuven, 1993]).Google Scholar

²⁰ The incipit of the Preface I have quoted at note 18 contains the words “commentary (tafsīr) by Porphryry of Tyrus”: Badawī, p. 3.6. On the possible meanings of the word tafsir in this phrase, see Aouad, “La Théologie d'Aristote,” p. 546.Google Scholar See also Thillet, P., “Note sur la Theologie d'Aristote,” in Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, II (quoted at note 5), pp. 625–37, p. 626.Google Scholar

²¹ All the relevant aspects of Porphyry's editorial activity on Plotinus' treatises are dealt with in the outstanding two-volumes edition, French translation and commentary of the Porphyrian Vita Plotini: Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin. I (quoted at note 11), II (quoted at note 5).Google Scholar

²² Rose, review of Dieterici translation quoted at note 17, col. 844. Porphyry's lost περι αρхων is n° 30 Beutler and n° 26 Smith.Google Scholar

²³ Baumstark, A., “Zur Vorgeschichte der arabischen Theologie des Aristoteles,” Oriens Christianus, 2 (1902): 187–91.Google Scholar The “pattern” includes (i) the idea that the work is “eine bewusste Fälschung” (p. 187); (ii) the hypothesis of a lost Syriac antecedent of the Arabic text we actually possess, an antecedent responsible (a) for the completely different disposition of the text with respect to the Greek original, (b) for the doctrinal shift the Arabic presents under many respects in comparison with Plotinus' texts, and (c) for the pseudepigraphic attribution to Aristotle (p. 189). This pattern has recently been challenged in all its main points by Zimmermann, F., “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” in Kraye, J., Ryan, W.F. and Schmitt, C.B. (ed.), Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages. The “Theology” and Other Texts (London, 1986), pp. 110–240, who contends (i) that the work was by no means purposedly ascribed to Aristotle in order to deceive the reader: “There is no case for supposing pseudepigraphy in the sense of conscious forgery,” p. 131, and (ii) that there is no reason to suppose a Syriac intermediary for the Plotinian materials extant in Arabic, p. 113–18.Google Scholar Consequently, the three facts this intermediary accounted for in Baumstark's explanation, are in Zimmermann's view accounted for as follows: (a) the different disposition of the Arabic Theology with respect to the Greek Plotinus text is due to “a physical catastrophe which befell the original *Theology early in its life,” p. 125–31 (the quotation, p. 130); (b) the doctrinal shifts affecting the Arabic Plotinus in comparison with the genuine Plotinus are due to the same person who made the translation into Arabic, namely, Ibn Nā'ima al-Himsī (p. 116); (c) the misattribution to Aristotle, consistently with his point (a), is due to a later misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the Arabic version of Plotinus (p. 131). See the review by Daiber, H., Der Islam, 65 (1988): 130–4, whose main doubt about Zimmermann's thesis is that the idea to harmonize Plotinus with Aristotle would hardly have arisen in the Islamic context itself, without a pre-existent late ancient pattern.Google ScholarThillet, P., “Note sur la Théologie d'Aristote,” presents some passages in the Theology which receive, in his view, a better explanation on the assumption of a Syriac model for the Arabic translation.Google Scholar Finally, see Brague, R., “La phiosophie dans la Théologie d'Aristote. Pour un inventaire,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 8 (1997): 365–87.Google Scholar

²⁴ Baumstark, “Zur Vorgeschichte,” pp. 187–8.Google Scholar

²⁵ Baumstark, “Zur Vorgeschichte,” p. 187. Baumstark did not provide a support for his claim that in the Enneads there is not only Plotinus' work but also a commentary by Porphyry. In 1909, in his review of Mommert's edition of the Porphyrian Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes,Google ScholarBidez, J., Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 18 (1909): 186–90, suggested that the pseudo-Theology might well have been a remainder of Porphyry's хεϕάλαια (p. 188).Google Scholar This view was accepted also by Massignon, L., Recueil de textes inédits concernant l'histoire de la mystique en pays d'Islam (Paris, 1929), who saw in the Theology the “traduction paraphrastique des commentaires (perdus) de Porphyre sur les Ennéades de Plotin” (p. 175). I owe this quotation to the review of Massignon's book by C. Nallino, who in turn anticipated some contemporary positions, in so far as he observed that the evaluation quoted of the Theology is scarcely supported by the text itself.Google Scholar See Nallino, C., Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti, vol. II, L'Islām. Dogmatica - sūfismo - confraternite, a cura di Nallino, M. (Rome, 1940), p. 471.Google Scholar

²⁶ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” p. 125.Google Scholar

²⁷ Henry, P., “Vers la reconstitution de l'enseignement oral de Plotin,” Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 23 (1937): 310–42.Google Scholar This thesis was maintained by Henry, also in his Études plotiniennes, I. Les États du texte de Plotin, Museum Lessianum, série philosophique 20 (Paris-Bruxelles, 1938), p. xiv,Google Scholarbut later on the author changed his mind (see notes 30–32). Henry pointed chiefly to two facts, both arising from Porphyry's records in his Life of Plotinus. Firstly, he compared the pseudo-Theology to the Greek original, and found in the Arabic paraphrase not only the traces of an oral style, but also doctrinal parallels with Alexander of Aphrodisias. Taking for granted, on Porphyry's Life of Plotinus 14.13 authority, that Alexander was read in Plotinus' lecture class, Henry argued that the presence of such parallels could count as a trace of Amelius' notes of the topics lectured by Plotinus but not conveyed in the Porphyrian edition of his teacher's writings. This reconstruction was rendered, to Henry's eyes, even more plausible in view of the fact that Amelius left Rome in 268, i.e., two years before Plotinus' death; so, he did not have access to the last nine treatises Plotinus wrote in this course of time. The fact that no one among these nine last treatises is reproduced in the Arabic paraphrase was seen by Henry as fitting well with his hypothesis. The plausibility of such a reconstruction was reinforced by the fact that Emesa, the city Ibn Nā'ima came from, was close to Apamea.Google Scholar See Goulet-Cazé, M.-O., “L'édition porphyrienne des Ennéades,’ in Brisson et al., Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, I, pp. 280–325, especially pp. 312–13.Google Scholar On Amelius, see Brisson, L., “Amélius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine, son style,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung hrsg.Google ScholarHaase, von W. und Temporini, H., II, 36.2, pp. 793–860, especially pp. 800–1 (on Amelius' stay in Apamea) and 805–10 (on Amelius' record of Plotinus' teaching, which Brisson interprets as being the same as the pre-Porphyrian edition of Plotinus' writings attributed to Eustochius byGoogle ScholarHenry, P., Recherches sur la Préparation évangélique d'Eusèbe et l'édition perdue des œuvres de Plotin publiée par Eustochius, Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études. Sciences Religieuses 50 [Paris, 1935]).Google Scholar

²⁸ This part of the pseudo-Theology contains the so-called ru'ūs al-masā'il, “Headings of the Questions.” The pseudo-Theology falls into three main parts, the Preface, the “Headings of the Questions,” and the proper Plotinian paraphrase. For a clear and up-to-date outline of the problems and solutions proposed in the scholarship about this threefold composition of the work, see Aouad, “La Theologie d'Aristote,” pp. 546–61.Google Scholar

²⁹ Porphyry, Life of Plotinus, 26.32–35.Google Scholar On the question of how to interpret the ύπομνήματα, έπιπειϱήματα and хεϕάλαια Porphyry tells us he composed on Plotinus' treatises, see the careful analysis by Goulet-Cazé, “L'édition porphyrienne des Ertnéades,” especially pp. 305–25, “Les compléments porphyriens aux Ennéades.” The main reasons to maintain that the “Headings of the Questions” record the хεϕάλαια Porphyry tells us to have composed for all the Plotinian treatises except one are the following: (i) the mention of Porphyry's name at the beginning of the ru'ūs almasā'il, again as the author of the tafsīr to Aristotle's “book of Theology”Google Scholar (see Badawī, p. 8.4); (ii) the relationship between the “Headings of the Questions” and the text of Ennead IV 4, chapters 1–34, which seems to be closer than the one between them and their Arabic paraphrase; (iii) the mismatch between the “Headings of the Questions” and the Arabic text as we possess it. Especially point (iii) has been challenged by Zimmermann, “The Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle”: see note 31.Google Scholar

³⁰ Henry, P., Introduction to Plotini Opera ediderunt P. Henry - H.R. Schwyzer, II, Museum Lessianum, series philosophica 33–35 (Paris-Bruxelles, 1959), p. XXVIII.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibidem. Henry's contention that the differences between the Arabic pseudo-Theology and Plotinus' text could trace back to his oral teaching transmitted to the Arab world via Amelius has been criticized also by Theiler, W. in his review of Henry's Les États du texte de Plotin, published in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 41 (1941): 169–76, especially p. 170.Google ScholarZimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” pp. 165–77, discusses at length this hypothesis.Google Scholar On the grounds of the fact that there are cases in which a “Heading” reproduces a peculiar shift of the Arabic vs the Greek, he construes the “Headings of the Questions” as a “catalogue” made by the translator himself. Zimmermann's thesis about the “Headings” has been partly accepted, partly challenged by Thillet, “Note sur la Theologie d'Aristote” (especially pp. 629–32).Google Scholar

³² Schwyzer, H. R., “Die pseudoristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe des Porphyrios,” Museum Helveticum, 90 (1941): 216–36.Google ScholarSchwyzer's argument (p. 223) runs as follows: the begnning of chapter (mīmar) II of the pseudo-Theology, which concides with the beginning of IV 4, reproduces the second half of a sentence broken in the middle by Porphyry, when he created out of Plotinus' writing On Difficulties about the soul the treatises 3 and 4 of Ennead IV. In doing so, the pseudo-Theology assigns to this half-sentence, instead of its true subject (which lies in the first half of the sentence, still belonging to IV 3) another subject, ad sensum. This proves that its antecedent was already split in precisely this point, and this, in turn, amounts to prove that it was Porphyry's edition which provided the model for the Arabic. The famous argument I have just summarized is the second in a series of seven points, on the grounds of which Schwyzer disproved the hypothesis of the dependence of the pseuso-Theology form a non-Porphyrian circulation of Plotinus' texts, even though Schwyzer modestly presented them as “observations” made in order “to modify Henry's thesis in the sense that Porphyry's edition of the Enneads did not remain without any trace in the Theology” (p. 222). His conclusion was that “The Theology as we have it is hardly conceivable without the Porphyrian edition of the Enneads” (p. 225).Google Scholar See also Schwyzer's, entry Plotinos in Paulys Realencyclopädie, 21, 1 (1951), cols. 506–507.Google Scholar In turn, Henry qualified Schwyzer's, reasoning as a “decisive argument” against his previous view: “The oral teaching of Plotinus,” Dionysius, 6 (1982): 3–12, p. 5 n. 9.Google Scholar

³³ Such is the picture in the authoritative Introduction by Henry, P. and Schwyzer, H. R. in Plotini Opera II (see the note 30).Google Scholar See also Dörrie, H., review of the quoted Plotini Opera, Gnomon, 36 (1964): 461–69, who understands the “enneadische Vorrlage”, of the Arabic pseudo-Theology as “eine von Porphyrios kommentierte Plotin-Ausgabe” (p. 464). Dörrie's neat formulation is quoted byGoogle ScholarGoulet-Cazé, “L'édition porphyrienne des Ennéades,” p. 313 n. 1. See also pp. 312–13 and 323–5 of this outstanding contribution for the picture recieved in the scholarship of Porphyry's role in the transmission of the Plotinian texts to the Arab world up to the time of publication of the French Vita Plotini.Google Scholar

³⁴ Kraus, P., “Plotin chez les Arabes. Remarques sur un nouveau fragment de la paraphrase arabe des Ennéades,” Bulletin de l'Institut dˇEgypte, 23 (1941): 263–95.Google Scholar See also Mariën, B., “De zogenaamde Theologie van Aristoteles en de Araabse Plotinos-traditie,” Tjidschrift voor Filosofie, 10 (1948): 125–46, an article which aims at completing some data in the study by Kraus, and whose main results are summarised inGoogle ScholarMärien, B., “Etudes plotiniennes,” Revue philosophique de Louvain, 47 (1949): 386–410, p. 399, n. 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ Rosenthal, F., “Aš-Šayh al-Yūnānī and the Arabic Plotinus source,” Orientalia, 21 (1952): 461–92; 22 (1953): 370–400; 24 (1955): 42–65 (also in Greek Philosophy in the Arab World, A Collection of Essays [Greath Yarmouth, 1990]).Google Scholar

³⁶ In the same course of time, the mentioned doxography (preserved in Šahrastāni's Milal wa al-nihal; see above, note 19)Google Scholar, was translated into Italian by Gabrieli, F., “Plotino e Porfirio in un eresiografo musulmano,” La Parola del Passato, 1 (1946): 338–46.Google Scholar

³⁷ Rosenthal, “Aš-Šayh al-Yūnānī and the Arabic Plotinus source,” p. 467.Google Scholar

³⁸ Kutsch, “Em arabisches Bruchstück aus Porphyrios (?) περί ψυχής und die Frage des Verfassers der Theologie des Aristoteles,” Mélanges de l'Université saint-Joseph, 31 (1954): 265–86.Google ScholarWasserstein, D., in Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta edidit A. Smith (see note 1), pp. 503–7, provides an English translation of this Arabic text on the soul attributed to Porphyry, and indicates (p. 504) that it is partly preserved alsoGoogle Scholarapud al-Tawhīdī, al-Muqābasāt, ed. Husayn, M. Tawfiq (Bagdad, 1970), pp. 402–3.Google Scholar See Endress, G., “Al-Kindi über die Wiedererinnerung der Seele. Arabischer Platonismus und die Legitimation der Wissenschaften im Islam,” Oriens, 34 (1994): 174–221, especially p. 200;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCh. Généquand, “La mémoire de l'âme: Porphyre et la Théologie d'Aristote,” Bulletin d'études orientales, 48 (1996): 102–13.Google Scholar

³⁹ Kutsch, “Em arabisches Bruchstück aus Porphyrios (?) περί ψυχής,” p. 265, pointed to the lost Porphyrian treatise Περί ψυχής πρòς Bóηον (n° 33 Beutler, n° 32 Smith) as a possible Greek antecedent of the Maqāla li-Furfūrīyūs fi al-nafs. One may guess also that this text, related as it is to Ennead IV 4, seems to meet the criteria for being the remainder of one of Porphyry's ύπομνήματα. As a matter of fact, the question whether the Maqāla has any chance to preserve a trace of a real Porphyrian ύπóμνημα deserves attention and might be answered by means of a comparison with the relevant Plotinian passages. Such a comparison, which I hope to develop elsewhere, might enable us to detect the literary character of the Maqāla (summary, explanation of selected problems or passages, survey?). Porphyry devoted several ζητήματα to soul, fragmentarily preserved in Nemesius and Priscianus (see Dörrie, Porphyrios' “Symmikta Zetemata”), and a study of the Maqāla li-Furfūrīyūs fī alnafs would to my mind benefit from a careful comparison with them.

⁴⁰ Chiefly, the Preface, whose contents make it clear that it is appended to the text of the Enneads translated and paraphrased in the main part of the pseudo-Theology of Aristotle.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Kutsch parted company with Rosenthal, according to whom the “Greek Sage” was in fact Plotinus (see also Rosenthal, F., “Plotinus in Islam: The power of anonymity,” in Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, pp. 437–46). The Greek evidence of Porphyry's nickname πρεσβύτης Tύριος, Tύριος γέρων gave to Kutsch a good sense for interpreting the doxographical materials collected under the name of al-Šayh al-Yūnānī as tracing back not to Plotinus but to Porphyry. And since the “sayings of the Greek Sage” were proved to be rooted in Plotinus' text, the possibility laid ready to hand to conclude that the Arabic “Plotinus source” traced back to one and the same origin, Porphyry (p. 284).Google Scholar

⁴² Van Ess, “Jüngere orientalistische Literatur,” pp. 338–9.Google Scholar

⁴³ Le Néoplatonisme. Colloques internationaux du CNRS, Royaumont 9–13 juin 1969 (Paris, 1971).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Thillet, P., “Indices porphyriens dans la Théologie d'Aristote,” in Le Néoplatonisme, 293–302, p. 294.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Thillet, “Indices porphyriens dans la Théologie d'Aristote,” pp. 294–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Thillet, “Indices porphyriens dans la Théologie d'Aristote,” p. 295.Google Scholar See also, by the same scholar, “Une page de Plotin (Enn. IV 3[27], 20.1–39) et son commentaire dans la pseudo-Théologie d'Aristote,” Revue des études grecques, 81 (1968): X–XII.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Thillet, “Indices porphyriens dans la Théologie d'Aristote,” pp. 297–301. In my “Il tema della docta ignorantia nel neoplatonismo arabo. Un contributo all'analisi delle fonti di Teologia di Aristotele, mīmar II,” in Concordia Discors.Google Scholar Studi su Niccolò Cusano e l'umanesimo europeo offerti a Giovanni Santinello, a cura di Piaia, G., Medioevo e Umanesimo, 84 (Padova, 1993), pp. 3–22, I have tried to argue in favour of the influence of the pseudo-Dionysian formula for this concept on the Arabic reworking of Plotinus.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Thillet, “Indices porphyriens dans la Théologie d'Aristote,” pp. 301–2.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Pinès, S., “Les textes arabes dits plotiniens et le courant ‘porphyrien’ dans le néoplatonisme grec,” in Le Néoplatonisme, pp. 303–17, especially p. 309.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Pinès, “Les textes arabes dits plotiniens,” p. 309.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Pinès, “Les textes arabes dits plotiniens,” p. 311.Google Scholar I have argued for the pseudo-Dionysian influence concerning this doctrine on the Arabic reworking of Plotinus' writings in “Esse quod est supra aeternitatem. La Cause première, l'être et l'éternité dans le Liber de Causis et dans ses sources,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age, 59 (1992): 41–62Google Scholar and in “La doctrine néoplatonicienne de l'être entre l'Antiquité tardive et le Moyen Age. Le Liber de Causis par rapport à ses sources,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 59 (1992): 41–85,CrossRefGoogle Scholar both collected in Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, Études de philosophie médiévale 72 (Paris, 1995), pp. 53–72; 121–53.Google Scholar

⁵² Accepted by Blumenthal, H. J., “Plotinian scholarship in the light of twenty years' scholarship, 1951–1971,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung hrsg. Temporini, von H. u. Haase, W., II. 36.1 (Berlin-New York, 1987): 528–570, especially p. 541.Google Scholar

⁵³ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle” (quoted above, note 23), p. 120. See also the more detailed formulation of the “Plotinian hypothesis” at p. 131.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Zimmermann's contention is based upon what he calls (p. 121, 173) the “amateur” character of the Arabic paraphrase with respect to the Greek original, or its “pervading dilettantism” (p. 133).Google Scholar I do agree with this evaluation (see my “Per un profilo filosofico dell'autore della Teologia di Aristotele,” Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale, 17 [1992]: 83–134).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” pp. 120–21:Google Scholar“(…) let us record in passing the weaknesses of the Porphyrian hypothesis as they emerge. We have already noted that *AP does not look like a work by Porphyry. We may now add that the Porphyrian hypothesis fails to make sense of our inscription. For if *AP is an account by Porphyry, why the unnatural form of words (‘… expounded by Porphyry' rather than ‘Porphyry's exposition of…’) […]? And why ‘Aristotle's Theology' rather than ‘Plotinus’ Enneads' […]? The first question, but not the second, can be answered on the basis of a suggestion by W. Kutsch, who saw behind *AP a work by Porphyry on Aristotle's theology. […] But it is hard to share Kutsch's belief that Porphyry himself would have described as an account of Aristotle's theology what was in fact a paraphrase of Plotinus' theology.” The only alternative to the forgery hypothesis is the one of “a writer of remarkably loose notions,” who would have been unable to distinguish between Aristotle's and Plotinus' theology: “Kutsch's suggestion only makes sense if that prototype, inscription and all, was the work of a late Greek (Christian?) amateur.” Zimmermann is not willing to commit himself to the latter hypothesis, and strongly argues in favour of the view that the reworking, including the misattribution to Porphyry, was done directly in the Arabic milieu.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” p. 120.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ According to Zimmermann, the “Headings of the Questions” are better related to the Arabic text than to the Greek, as was maintained by those scholars who saw in this part of the pseudo-Theology of Aristotle the remains of Porphyry's πεϕάλαια (see above, notes 28–29 and 31).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” pp. 173–4, examines the four doctrinal topics in the Arabic Plotinus where Thillet and Pines detected a Porphyrian influence, namely, (i) the presence of a “causal language” more frequent than in Plotinus' own texts; (ii) the doctrine of the docta ignorantia; (iii) the identity between the One and Being; (iv) the idea that the second principle produces the forms, whereas the First Principle produces being.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” p. 177.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Badawi, (quoted at note 18), p. 6.7–11:Google Scholar “Now our aim in this book is the discourse on the Divine Sovereignty, and the explanation of it, and how it is the first cause, eternity and time being beneath it, and that it is the cause and originator of causes, in a certain way, and how the luminous force steals from it over mind and, through the medium of mind, over the universal celestial soul, and from mind, through the medium of soul, over nature, and from soul, through the medium of nature, over the things that come to be and pass away.” (transl. Lewis, G. in Plotini Opera II [quoted at note 30] p. 487 [hereafter: Lewis]).Google Scholar

⁶¹ In V 2[11], 1, φύσις appears to be another “hypostasis” produced by Soul (προέβη [i.e., ή νω ψυχή] είς τò χάτω ύπóστασιν λλην ποιησαμένη V 2[11], 1.26). Armstrong, A. H., The Architecture of Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus, Cambridge Classical Studies (Cambridge, 1940; repr. Amsterdam 1967), p. 86, contended that this passage allows us to credit Plotinus with a “fourfold” hierarchy of principles, containing below the World Soul also Nature. Against this thesis reacted convincinglyGoogle ScholarRist, J., Plotinus. The Road to Reality (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 91–3.Google Scholar According to Blumenthal, H. J., φύσις (i.e., the lower part of the World Soul) as a fourth hypostasis does not represent Plotinus' usual professed position: see “Nous and soul in Plotinus: some problems of demarcation,” in Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente, pp. 203–19, p. 204, and “Soul, world-soul and individual soul in Plotinus,” in Le Néoplatonisme, pp. 55–63, p. 58.Google Scholar

⁶² Badawi, pp. 134.5–137.4; Lewis, pp. 291–3. The relevant passage runs as follows: “For if she wishes to move towards her cause she moves upwards and if she wishes to bring about an image she moves downwards and originates an image, which is sensation and the nature in simple bodies and plants and animals and every substance.Google Scholar (…) But although the soul proceeds until she reaches the plants and enters them, she enters them because when she wishes to bring about her effects she proceeds downwards until, in her proceeding and her desire for what is base, she originates an individual” (Lewis, p. 293). I have reproduced in this quotation, and will do in the following ones, Lewis' distinction of the passages literally drawn from Plotinus, in italics, and interpolations, in standard typescript. To my mind, in the quoted passage the final words too (“she originates an individual”) require italics: compare Badawī's abda'at … šahsan (p. 136.17–18) with Plotinus' ύπόστασιν … ποιησαμένη.Google Scholar

⁶³ Vita Plotini 4.41–42.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ This treatise too is preserved in the Arabic Plotinus almost entirely: see the two extremely useful tables in Plotini Opera II, Arabica secundum ordinem Enneadum and Ordo fragmentorum arabicorum, respectively at p. 491 and pp. 496–500.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ According to Zimmermann's hypothesis, the Preface and the paraphrase are due to one and the same author. Were the Preface and the paraphrase due to different personalities, their approach to Plotinus' original doctrines is in any case indistinguishable.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Badawī, pp. 29.3–44.18; pp. 74.4–83.16.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Badawī, pp. 189.20–193.2.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Badawī, pp. 48.8–55.9; pp. 121.5–129.7.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Badawī, pp. 22.2–28.3; pp. 84.5–91.20. I have quoted the first words of IV 8[6] in Armstrong's translation.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ From IV 3[27], 20–22 he drew the doctrine of soul's presence in the body as a simple and immaterial whole informing by means of its causality all the parts of the composite and material reality: see Badawī, pp. 42.4–44.18. The similar doctrine of V 2[11], 2 too is reproduced in the Arabic paraphrase:Google Scholar see Badawī, p. 138.4–10. From IV 7[2], 1–2 the author drew the idea of soul's immateriality and incorruptibility, a feature pertaining to the individual soul as well as to the World Soul:Google Scholar see Badawī, pp. 121.11–122.18; 123.9–124.15. From IV 7[2], 8 he drew the arguments Plotinus had with the Stoic and Aristotelian doctrines of soul: see Badawī, pp. 54.1–55.19, and the analysis of Zimmermann, “The origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” pp. 124–5; 156–9.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Blumenthal' study “Soul, world-soul and individual soul in Plotinus,” quoted above at note 61.Google Scholar

⁷² Chapter 3 of the pseudo-Theology depends completely upon IV 7[2], 8. Plotinus' long chapter 8 is subdivided in the modern editions of the Enneads in sub-sections (= 8¹-8⁵), which follow the beginning section of the chapter (= 8). Chapter 3 of the pseudo-Theology does not reproduce the order of Plotinus' text, since it begins by the section covering 8¹, line 9 - 8², line 12; then goes back to 8 and to the first lines of 8¹; after that, it reproduces the remains of 8² and proceeds until 8⁵. The passage quoted in the text is located at the beginning of chapter 3 of the pseudo-Theology and is followed by the literal translation of lines 9–11 of 8¹.Google Scholar

⁷³ Badawī, p. 45.3–5; I have quoted in the text the translation made by Lewis, p. 199.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ IV 7[2], 3.28–31. Transi. Armstrong: “For how, since all bodies are in process of division, if one attributed the origin of this universe to any one of them, would one not make it a mindless thing, moving at random? For what order could there be in a breath, which needs order from soul, or what reason or intelligence?”Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Badawī, p. 127.14–15Google Scholar see Lewis, p. 185: “We say that this world does not proceed by luck and chance but proceeds by an intellectual soul-word with the utmost deliberation and control. If this is so, we say that it is the intellectual soul which is the ruler over this world.” I have reproduced Lewis' use of italics and standard typescript (see above, note 62).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ For instance, in Badawī, p. 104.12 nafs al-kull parallels Plotinus' τήν τοũ παντός ψυχήν of IV 4[28], 6.7; at p. 91.5–6, al-nafs al-kulliyya parallels Plotinus' ή…ὅλη of IV 8[6], 8.13.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See on that my “Esse quod est supra aeternitatem,” quoted above at note 51.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ IV 8[6], 7.5–6 (transl. Armstrong).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The quoted Plotinian passage and its context are reproduced in the pseudo- Theology of Aristotle, Badawī, p. 87.13–18:Google Scholar see Lewis, p. 247: “We say that nature is of two kinds, an intelligible and a sensible. When the soul is in the intelligible world she is superior and nobler, and when she is in the lower world she is baser and viler on account of the body she has entered. Even though the soul is intellectual and from the upper intelligible world, she must inevitably acquire something from the sensible world and enter it, for her nature coalesces with the intelligible world and with the sensible world. So the soul must not be blamed and censured for leaving the mental world and for coming into being in this world, since she is placed between both worlds.”Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Badawī, pp. 108.17–109.2: εỉ πών τις … νοũ is rendered by mitālun min al-'aqli (108.18).Google Scholar

⁸¹ See above, note 73.Google Scholar

⁸² IV 7[2], 10.1–2.Google Scholar

⁸³ IV 7[2], 13.1–2; transl. Armstrong.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ IV 7[2], 13.1–8; transl. Armstrong: “How then, since the intelligible is separate, does soul come into body? It is in this way: as much of it” — i.e., the νοητóν of line 1— “as is only intellect has a purely intellectual life in the intelligible and stays there for ever without being affected; but that which acquires desire, which follows immediately on that intellect, goes out further in a way by its acquisition of desire, and, desiring to impart order and beauty according to the pattern which it sees in Intellect, is as if pregnant by the intelligibles and labouring to give birth, and so is eager to make, and constructs the world.”

⁸⁵ IV 7[2], 13.8–13; transl. Armstrong: “And, straining towards the sense-world by its eagerness, along with the whole of the soul of the universe it transcends what it directs and shares in the care of the All, but when it wants to direct a part it is isolated and comes to be in that part in which it is; it does not come to belong wholly and altogether to the body, but has some part as well outside the body.” Since the immediate context does not provide a referent for the feminine participles τεταμήνη …χχουσα, one should decide between the sole feminine substantives in the broader context, namely, όρμή and ὄπεξις (which do not give much sense), and the pronoun ᾕδε of line 1, which refers back to φυχή, clearly to be preferred as for the meaning. Armstrong's translation uses the same subject “it” for the sentence whose grammatical subject is the entity which acquire desire, and for the one whose subject is the series of feminine participles.

⁸⁶ The puzzle I have described depends upon the assumption that Plotinus in this passage begins speaking of two “sides” of Intellect and turns to speak of the World Soul. As a matter of fact, the crucial sentence őσος μὲν νοũς μóνος (…) έχει έεί μήνει (…) ő δ' νν őρεξιν προσλάβη ήϕεξής έχείνω τῷνῶőν. >νπροσϑήχῃτỉς όρέξεωξ οίον φρóεισιν does not point to two sides of Intellect, but to two entities of the intelligible realm (the νοητóν mentioned at line 1). The expression ő δ' νν őρεξιν φροσλάβη does in fact indicate another reality belonging to the intelligible realm, as it is suggested (i) from the use of the neuter ő instead of the masculine őς, which would have unambiguously looked back to νοũς (ii) from what follows immediately in the sentence, since the entity alluded to by the relative ő is said to be successive to that Intellect. Therefore, the expression ő δ' νν őρεξιν προσλάβη points to one of the principles belonging to the νοητóν, and can be considered as a periphrasis standing for ψυχή. This passage is, to my mind, difficult enough to raise the question, but not inconsistent with the standard Plotinjan statements about the distinction between Intellect and World Soul.

⁸⁷ Badawī, pp. 18.13–19.7. Lewis' translation, p. 219: “To proceed: now that it has been demonstrated and confirmed that the soul is not a body and does not die or decay or perish, but is abiding and everlasting, we wish to study concerning her also how she departs from the world of mind and descends to this corporeal world of sense and enters this gross transient body which falls under genesis and corruption. We say that every substance that is only intellectual possesses intellectual life and is impassive and therefore the substance reposes in the world of mind, fixed in it and perpetual, not departing from it or proceeding to another place, because it has no place towards which to move from its own place, nor does it desire any place than its own. Every intellectual substance which has a certain desire, is posterior to the substance which is mind alone, with no desire. When the mind acquires a desire, it proceeds because of that desire in a certain direction and does not abide in its original place, for it desires greatly to act and to adorn the things which it has seen in the mind. Like the woman who has conceived and to whom the birth-pangs have come, so that she may bring forth what is in her womb, so, when the mind is informed with the form of desire, it desires to bring out into actuality the form that is in it, and it longs greatly for that, and the birth-pangs seize it and it brings it (the form) forth into actuality because of its desire for the sensible world.”

⁸⁸ IV 7[2], 12.16; 19–20: ‘Αλλ’ ούχ őγχος ούδέ ποσóν, ώς έδεíχη, ή ψνχή. (…) Eι ον χατά μηδήν τούτων οīόν τε πθείρεσθαι, παρτον εĩναι άνάγχη.

⁸⁹ In fact, this passage and its opening sentence are at present located at the very beginning of Chapter 1 of the Theology, but are clearly related to the final part of the previous sentence in the Greek original, to which the author alludes as to an already discussed topic.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Badawi, p. 19.8–13;Google ScholarLewis' translation, p. 219: “When the mind receives the desire to go downwards, the soul is informed by it and the soul is then a mind informed with the form of desire, although the soul has sometimes a universal desire and sometimes a particular desire. When she has a universal desire she fashions the universal forms into actuality and governs them intellectually and universally, without departing from her universal world. When she desires the particular things, which are forms of her universal form, she adorns them and increases them in purity and beauty, and corrects what error has occurred in them, and governs them in a higher and loftier way than their proximate cause, which is the heavenly bodies.”Google Scholar

⁹¹ See the following instances (where sawwara and its derivatives correspond to the Greek within round brackets):Google ScholarBadawi, p. 32.12 (είδοποιούμενος, Enn. IV 4[28], 2.7); 59.3 (τοũ πλάσαντος, V 8[31], 2.4); 59.3 (εīδς … παρασχόντος, V 8[31], 2.5–6); 84.6 (χοσμήσει, IV 8[6], 5.27); 113.12 (μορϕοθέντος, V 1[10], 5.16); 113.12 (μορϕοθέντος, V 1[10], 5.17). The distinction made in the Liber de Causis between causality bi-naw'ibdā’ (belonging only to the First Cause) and bi-naw' sūra (requiring previous creation) presupposes and amplifies this use of sawwara.Google Scholar

⁹² See notes 73 and 75.Google Scholar

⁹³ Diadochi, ProcliIn Platonis Timaeum commentaria, edidit Diehl, E. (Lipsiae, 1903), t. I, pp. 299.13–319.21.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The extant fragments are edited by Sodano, A. R., Porphyrii in Platonis Timaeum commentariorum fragmenta (Naples, 1964).Google ScholarSmith, Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta (see note 1), p. 198, adds a fragment to the collection edited by Sodano.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 300.1–13 (= fr. XL Sodano).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 303.25–26: … θεαώμεθα, τίς ό δημιονργòς οũτος χαί έν ποíα τάξει τέταχται τῶν őντων. Proclus calls also attention on the fact that views differ about that: λλοι γάρ ατπν πρεσβυτέρων έπ' δλλας δóξας ήνέχθησαν (26–27).

⁹⁷ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, pp. 303.27–304.22.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, pp. 304.22–305.6.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 305.6–16.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, pp. 305.16–306.1.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 306.1–31.Google Scholar

¹⁰² In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, pp. 306.31–307.7 (= fr. XLI Sodano): μετά δή τόν 'Αμέλιον ό Πορϕύριος οίóμενος τσ;Πλωτίνω συνάδειν, τήν μέν ϕυχήν τήν ύπερχóσμιον άποχαλεī δημιονργόν, τòν δέ νοũν αύτῆς, πρòς őν έπέστραπται, τò αύτοζῷον, ώς εĩναι τò παράδειγμα τοũ δέμιουρλοũ Πατςτον τòν νοũν. ẇν έρωτãν Πξιον, έν τίσι Πλωτχνοςτήν ψυχήν Ποιενδέμιουρλóν. Πχς δέ χαì τηΠλάτωνι τοũτο σύμψωνον, őς θεòν μέν χαί νοũν συνεχῶς έπονομάζει τòν δημιουργóν, ψυχήν δέ ούδαμῶς; This passage and the related ones in Proclus' commentary on the Timæus have been carefully studied by Deuse, W., “Der Demiurg bei Porphyrios und Iamblich,” in Die Philosophie des Neuplatonismus hrsg. von Zintzen, C. (Darmstadt, 1977), pp. 238–78.Google Scholar See also, by the same author, Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelenlehre, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandl. der Geistesund Sozialwiss. Kl., 3 (Mainz-Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 231–35;Google ScholarBaltes, M., Die Weltentstehung des platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten, Philosophia Antiqua 30 (Leiden, 1976), pp. 145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 307.14–19:Google Scholar “But after him (= Porphyry) the divine Iamblichus, attacking the theory of Porphyry at length (πολλά μέν άντιγράψας πρός τήν Πορψυρíου δóξαν), and condemning it as being un-Plotinian (χαí ώς <μή> Πλωτíνειον ατήνο σαν χαταβαλών), in giving his own theology, denominates the whole intelligible cosmos as the Demiurge, being in agreement himself, to judge at least by what he writes, with Plotinus.” The English translation of this passage is by Dillon, J. M., Iamblichi Chalcidiensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta, edition with translation and commentary by Dillon, J. M., Philosophia Antiqua 23 (Leiden, 1973), fr. 34, p. 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁴ In Tim., ed. Diehl, t. I, p. 309.7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ From p. 310.4 onwards to the end of this section of his commentary Proclus deals with Syrianus' account (ἃδέ χαί ταήμετέρω χαθηγεμόνι περί τούτου τεθεώρηται p. 310.4–5).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Syrianus' and Proclus' own position, in more specific terms, is that the demiurgic role does not belong to the intelligible level in its entirety (νοητòς χóσμος), but to a special class of gods, the δημιουργισειρά or διαχóσμησις, placed in the lowest rank of the intellegising gods.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Iamblichus' De anima is only partially surviving, preserved by Stobaeus' Eclogae: see Wachsmuth, C. - Hense, O., Ioannis Stobaei Anthologium (Berlin, 1844–1912; repr., 1958), I, 365.15–17: Πορϕύριος δέ ένδοιάζει περί αύτήν, πή μένδιατεταμένως αύτῆς άϕιστάμενος, πῇδέ συναχολουθών αύτῇ, ώς παραδοθείση ἄνωθεν. Κατά δή ταύτην νοũ χαì θаνχαì τоν χρειττóνων γενῶν ούδέν ή ψυχή διενήνοχε χατά γε τήν ὅλŋν οὐσíαν.Google Scholar The De anima received a French translation with important notes by Festugière, A.-J., La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, III. Les doctrines de l'âme (Paris, 1950;Google Scholar reprint Collection d'études anciennes, série grecque n° 77 [Paris, 1990]), pp. 177–264. Festugière re-ordered the fragments preserved by Stobaeus. The quoted passage is translated at p. 184.17–22. Porphyry's doctrine of the soul as it is preserved in Stobaeus' doxography has been carefully studied by Deuse, Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelenlehre, pp. 129–230.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See above, p. 75.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Schwyzer, Plotinos, in Paulys Realencyklopädie, p. 563.Google ScholarGerson, L. P., Plotinus (Cambridge, 1996), p. 63, argues for the possibility that “the soul of the universe is the demiurge's soul.”Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Blumenthal, H. J., “Nous and soul in Plotinus: some problems of demarcation” (quoted above, note 61, and reprinted in Soul and Intellect. Studies in Plotinus and Later Neoplatonism [London, 1993]).Google Scholar See also Armstrong, A.H., “Aristotle in Plotinus. The continuity and discontinuity of Psychē and Nous,” in Blumenthal, H.J. and Robinson, H. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Supplementary Volume: Aristotle and the Later Tradition (Oxford, 1991), pp. 117–27.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Blumenthal, “Nous and soul in Plotinus,” p. 206.Google Scholar

¹¹² Or also with the World Soul, whith in Blumenthal's view differs from Soul as hypostasis: see his “Soul, world-soul and individual soul in Plotinus” (quoted above, note 61, and reprinted in Soul and Intellect).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Blumenthal, “Nous and soul in Plotinus,” p. 209.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Blumenthal, “Nous and soul in Plotinus,” pp. 211–16.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ El. Th. 132, ed. Dodds, p. 118.2–5: πάντα ον τά θεία γένη συνδέδεται ταις οίχείαις μεσóτησι, χαί ούχ άμέσως έπί τάς διαϕερούσας πάντη προóδους χωρεī τά προτα, άλλά διά ττν έχατέροις χοινῶν γενῶν, άϕ’ ὧν τε πρóεισι χαì ὧν έστιν άμέσως αἴτια. “Accordingly, all the classes of gods are bound together with the appropriate mean terms, and the first principles do not pass immediately into emanations wholly diverse from themselves; there are intermediate classes, having characters in common both with their causes and with their immediate effects.” (transl. Dodds, p. 119).

¹¹⁶ I have dealt with this problem in my “Primo principio e mondo intelligibile nella metafisica di Proclo: problemi e soluzioni,” Elenchos. Rivista di studi sul pensiero antico, 12 (1991): 271–302.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See above, p. 78 and note 107.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Stobaeus, Anth. ed. Wachsmuth-Hense, I, p. 365.7–14: Eίσì δή τινες, οἴ πᾶσαν τήντοιαύτην ούσίαν όμοιομερή χαί τήν αύτήν χαì μíαν άποϕαίνονται, ώς χαì έν ότωοũν αύτῆς μέρει εĩναι τά őλα οἵτινες χαì έν τῇ μεριστῇψ υχητόν νοηόν χόσμον χαì θεούς χαì δαíμονας χαì τάγαθòν χαì πάντα τά πρεςβύτερα γένη αύτῆς ένιδρύουσι χαì έν πᾶσιν ώσαύτως πάντα εīναι άποϕαíνονται, οίχεíως μέντοι χατά τήν αύτὶν ούσíαν έν έχάστοις … χατά δή ταύτην νονχαì θετν χαì τỦν χρειττóνων γενỦν ούδέν ή ψυχή διενήνοχε χατά γε τήν őλην ούσíαν.Google Scholar I am borrowing the English translation of this passage from Steel, C., The Changing Self. A Study on the Soul in later Neoplatonism: Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus, Verhandelingen van de koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, 85 (Brussel, 1978), p. 24.Google Scholar See also Deuse, Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelenlehre, pp. 167–218.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Festugière, , La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, III, p. 184 n. 1: “πσσαν τήν τοιαύτην ούσíαν (365.7), de même que τήν őλην ούσíαν (365.21), désigne, je crois, l'Ame comme hypostase, l'Ame universelle contenant toutes les âmes.”Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Steel, The Changing Self, p. 25: “However, it is not a question here of whether the soul is ‘uniform’ in itself, but rather whether the incorporeal reality of which the soul constitutes a part is entirely homogeneous or ontologically differentiated.”Google ScholarHadot, , Porphyre et Victorinus, I, p. 339, as Steel observes, interprets lamblichus' passage in the same way.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Steel, The Changing Self, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

¹²² Steel, The Changing Self, p. 30: “Particularly in those texts where he considers the soul in its pure essence, free from the bond with the sensible imposed on it by cosmic Necessity, the difference between the soul and the ideal forms is blurred.”Google Scholar

¹²³ Stobaeus, Anth. ed. Wachsmuth-Hense, I, p. 365.14–15: χαì ταύτης τής δóξης άναμϕισβητήτως μέν έστι Nουμήνιος, ού πάντη δέ όμολογουμένως Πλωτīνος, άστάτως δέ έν αύτῇϕέρεται 'Agr;μέλιος. This passage falls between the general doxography about soul quoted at p. 83, note 118, and the specific doxography concerning Porphyry quoted at p. 78, note 107.Google Scholar In his note to this passage, Festugière (184 n. 6) quotes another passage from Jamblichus' De anima where a similar doxography is presented, and still with a nuance of qualification for Plotinus (and for Amelius too). This passage concerns the distinction between the universal soul and particular souls; see ed. Wachsmuth-Hense, I, p. 372.9–12: χαí που Πλωτīνος χαì 'Αμέλιος éπì ταύτης είσì της (ένíοτε γάρ <ούχ> ώς ἄλλην τήν μεριστήν ψυχήν παρά τήν őλην. μíαν δέ αύτήν πρòς έχεíνην εīναι άϕορίζονται). (“Plotinus and Amelius are in a certain way of this opinion, and as a matter of fact they sometimes <do not> define the particular soul as being distinct from the universal soul, but do conceive of the universal soul as being the same as the particular soul.”) For a French translation of this passage, see Festugière, La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste, III, p. 203.10–14.+ώς+ἄλλην+τήν+μεριστήν+ψυχήν+παρά+τήν+őλην.+μíαν+δέ+αύτήν+πρòς+έχεíνην+εīναι+άϕορίζονται).+(“Plotinus+and+Amelius+are+in+a+certain+way+of+this+opinion,+and+as+a+matter+of+fact+they+sometimes++define+the+particular+soul+as+being+distinct+from+the+universal+soul,+but+do+conceive+of+the+universal+soul+as+being+the+same+as+the+particular+soul.”)+For+a+French+translation+of+this+passage,+see+Festugière,+La+Révélation+d'Hermès+Trismégiste,+III,+p.+203.10–14.>Google Scholar

¹²⁴ See p. 78 and note 107.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Porphyry's sentence 22, ed. Lamberz, p. 13.13–16, runs as follows: 'H νοερά ούσíα όμοιομερής έστιν, ὡς χαì έν τῷμεριχννῷ εīναι τά őντα χαì έν τῷ παντελεíῳ. άλλ' έν μέν τῷχ αθóλου χαì τά μεριχά χαθολιχῶς, έν δέ τέμεριχυχαì τά χαθóλου μεριχώς. It is true that the term όμοιομερής is used also by Plotinus (V[3], 5.3–5, a passage which actually is the main source of this Porphyrian sentence), but the doctrinal context in which it is used by lamblichus is the Porphyrian, not the Plotinian. As a matter of fact, Plotinus uses this term in his discussion of self-reflexivity of the Intellect, but Porphyry uses it to describe the relationship between the individual members of the intellectual rank and the universal Intellect.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Porphyry's sentence 10, ed. Lamberz, p. 4.7–10, runs as follows: πάντα έν πάσιν. άλλά οίχεíως τῇ έχάστου ούσíα. έν νῷ μέν γάρ νοερώς, έν ψυχή δέ λογιχῶς, έν δέ τοīς ϕυτοīς σπερματιχῶς, έν δέ σωμασιν είδωλιχώς, έν δέ τώέπέχεινα άνεννοήτως τε χαì ύπερουσíως.Google Scholar For Proclus' borrowing of this principle see El. Th. 103, ed. Dodds p. 92.13–29, whose beginning runs πάντα έν πᾶσιν, οιχεíως δέ έν έχάστῳ.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ I am developing this point in my “Les Sentences de Porphyre entre les Ennéades de Plotin et les Eléments de Théologie de Proclus,” to be published in the new French translation with commentary of Porphyry's Sentences edited by the CNRS UPR 76, “Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquite tardive et du haut Moyen Age” directed by M.-O. Goulet-Cazé.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Vita Plotini 18.8–19.Google Scholar See Armstrong, A. H., “The background of the doctrine that the intelligibles are not outside the intellect,” in Les Sources de Plotin, Entretiens Hardt, 5 (Vandœuvres - Genève, 1960), pp. 393–413;Google ScholarEvangeliou, Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry, p. 2; Pépin, J., in Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin, II, pp. 279–81. Iamblichus' allusion to Porphyry's stop and go attitude might be in some way related also to this notorious change of mind.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ For instance, abda ‘a parallels Plotinus’ ποιεīν in Badawī, p. 119.2 (compare V 8[31], 12.22); 147.11 (compare V 7[18], 8.6); mubdi' parallels Plotinus' τοũ ποιοũντος in Badawī, p. 119.10 (compare V 8[31], 12.21); al-bārī parallels δημιουγός in Badawi, p. 10.7 and 9 (compare IV 4[28], 10.1 and 4), as well as in 24.16 (compare IV 8[6], 1.43) al-bārī ta'ālā in Badawi, p. 25.11 parallels Plotinus' ποιητής (compare IV 8[6], 2.6).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ I have presented some instances of the intermingling of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian characteristics in my “Divine and human knowledge in the Plotiniana Arabica,” in Cleary, J. J. (ed.), The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy – De Wuif-Mansion centre, Series I, 24 (Leuven, 1997), pp. 419–42.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Saifrey, H.-D., “Connaissance et inconnaissance de Dieu: Porphyre et la Théosophie de Tübingen,” in Duffy, J. and Peradotto, A. (ed.), Gonimos. Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies Presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75 (Buffalo, 1988), pp. 1–20, p. 19.Google Scholar

¹³² The suppression of the Henads and the other mediating principles from the Arabic version of Proclus is discussed by Endress, G. in his masterly Proclus Arabus. Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica in arabischer Übersetzung (Wiesbaden, 1973), pp. 201–13;Google Scholar see also my “La doctrine de la création mediante intelligentia dans le Liber de Causis et dans ses sources,” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 76 (1992): 209–33 (also in Recherches sur le Liber de Causis, quoted above, note 51).Google Scholar