by Scott McGill
His awareness of different styles in expressing and defending one’s views is clear as is the rather lively manner of debate. Another famous example concerns the acrimonious debate about the eternity of the world between Simplicius and his contemporary Philoponus. Although they never met, Simplicius’s arguments are clearly ad hominem.
Apart from such matters of mode and style, it stands to reason that the authors of commentaries had developed tools to do what they wanted to do. We now know much more about the terminology related to exegesis, ranging from marginal annotation (paratithesthai) to clarifying notes (scholia) and commentaries (hypomnêmata) (Mansfeld 1994). Many of these exegetical techniques had previously been developed in Alexandria by Homer scholars, who started comparing versions of the text and tested the overall consistency of the style and content. These continued to be used and refined. For instance, in his comments to Aristotle’s Physics 3 (in Phys. 395.20–21) Simplicius indicates how he is alert to textual problems but also determined not to let these get in his way:
It should be known that at many places there are different readings in the text of this book [en pollois khoriois diaphoros hē graphē toutou pheretai tou bibliou]. But we must move to the discussion of the text passage by passage [epi ta kata meros tēs lexeōs]. (trans. Urmson 2001)
This is one of several comments in which we can see his methodical agenda, his thorough knowledge of the text, and the determination to produce a continuous exegesis. This gradual progression through the text is one good reason to assume his commentaries have a didactic motive. While short passages of the text are often interspersed between the passages of exegesis (which could have been added later), one can easily follow the text of Aristotle in the paraphrastic style of the commentaries, and the referencing forward and backward in both texts (that is, Aristotle’s and Simplicius’s) shows Simplicius’s astounding control of both narratives. Moreover, the comment seems to prove that the division of distinct books was already established, even if the larger subdivision of thematic units was still disputed, as with the Physics, which was divided by some as “five books On Natural Principles, and three On Motion” (in Phys. 6.5–10 Adrastus; cf. 801.13–16 “Aristotle and the associates of Aristotle” 1358.8–9), while others adhere to a four–four division (e.g. Porphyry, at Simpl. in Phys. 802.8–11). Simplicius expresses surprise over this but confirms that Porphyry used a “division of the eight books, as the four books from the fifth to the eighth coming after constitute the treatise on motion and is entitled idiosyncratically On Motion” (McKirahan 2001, n. 558).
18.5 Defining the Commentator
It is a remarkable fact about this long exegetical tradition that no explicit definition of the commentator’s task is found before the sixth century CE. The best description of the task of the commentator is found in Simplicius in Cat. 7.23–32, where he outlines his criteria for the Aristotelian exegete (trans. Wildberg 2005):
The worthy exegete of Aristotle’s writings [ton axion tōn Aristotelikōn sungrammatōn exēgētēn] must not fall wholly short of the latter’s (S1) greatness of intellect [megalonoia]. He must also have (S2) experience overall of what the Philosopher has written [empeiros], and must be (S3) a connoisseur of Aristotle’s stylistic habits [epistēmōn]. (S4) His judgement must be impartial [krisin adekaston], so that he may neither, out of misplaced zeal, (4.1) seek to prove something well said to be unsatisfactory, nor…(4.2) should he obstinately persist in trying to demonstrate that [Aristotle] is always and everywhere infallible, as if he had enrolled himself in the Philosopher’s school.
The definition may be read as both aspirational (must be “worthy,” axios) and prescriptive (“must not fall short,” etc.), while the main features also illustrate how comprehensively the prerequisites cover exegetical skills, close familiarity with the base text, and a balanced judgment. This last point does not mean that impartiality was always reached, but it certainly played a role in their considerations.
Half a century later an important testimony shows how Simplicius’s definition of an exegete influenced the commentators after him. Simplicius’s important description of the ideal commentator may be compared to that of “Elias” (late sixth century CE), who at in Cat. 122–123 (CAG vol. 18.1) displays clear echoes of Simplicius’s injunctions. Little is known about this “Elias” except that his name is associated with certain commentaries from the second half of the sixth century (Wildberg 2005, pp, 326–327). There are, however, also some intriguing elaborations that aim to clarify this task further, mixing these with brief historical or literary observations, so that the commentator’s role becomes even clearer as a result of further commentary on it. But there are also subtle additions and shifts of emphasis (S1, S2, etc., refer to the parallels in Simplicius):
The commentator should be both commentator [exēgētēs] and scholar [epistēmōn = S4] at the same time. It is the task of the commentator to (E1) unravel obscurities in the text [lit. “unfolding,” anaptuxis]; it is the task of the scholar to (E2) judge (=S4) what is true and what is false, or what is sterile and what is productive [krisis tou alēthous kai tou pseudous]. He must (E3) not assimilate himself [summetaballesthai] to the authors he expounds, like actors on the stage who put on different masks because they are imitating different characters. When expounding Aristotle he must not (E4.1) become an Aristotelian (=S4.2) and say there has never been so great a philosopher, when expounding Plato he must not (E4.2) become a Platonist and say there has never been a philosopher to match Plato. He must not (E5) force the text at all costs [mē ek pantos tropou biazesthai] and say that the ancient author [arkhaios] whom he is expounding is correct in every respect; instead he must repeat to himself at all times “the author is a dear friend, but so also is the truth, and when both stand before me the truth is the better friend.” (trans. Wildberg 2005, p. 327)
These general points of agreement between the two texts strongly suggest a connection: They share the emphasis on clarity (E1), judgment (E2), and avoiding bias if possible (E3). But the passage has a few additional observations of interest, including two precedents as examples of why one might be encouraged to take the problem of excessive partiality into account (emphasis mine):
He must not (E6) sympathize with a philosophical school (=S4.1‐2), as happened to Iamblichus, who out of sympathy for Plato is condescending in his attitude to Aristotle and will not contradict Plato in regard to the theory of ideas. He must not (E7) be hostile [mē antipaschein hairesei] to a philosophical school like Alexander [of Aphrodisias was]. The latter, being hostile to the immortality of the intellectual part of the soul, attempts to twist in every way the remarks of Aristotle in his third book on the immortality of the soul which prove that it is immortal (cf. E5). The commentator must know the whole of Aristotle (=S2) in order that, having first proved that Aristotle is consistent with himself [sumphōnon…heautōi], he may expound Aristotle’s works by means of Aristotle’s works. He must know the whole of Plato in order to prove that Plato is consistent with himself [sumphōnon…heautōi], and make the works of Aristotle an introduction to those of Plato. (trans. Wildberg 2005, p. 327)
The comments on actors, Iamblichus, the truth, consistency, and bias are illuminating and very similar to Simplicius’s requirements. The final comment also confirms the late Platonist approach – fixed by Porphyry and ahistorical in our eyes – that Aristotle serves as introduction to the ideas of Plato (see above on Porphyry, who made this standard in the school practice). But the demand for impartiality is here applied to both Aristotelians and Platonists, a significant extension compared to Simplicius.
18.6 Conclusion
This brief overview of the literary forms of the ancient philosophical commentary has adopted a definition of “literary” in the specific sense of “relating to a well‐developed genre of writing.” In its mature form the commentary used by the late Platonists is clearly an incredibly rich and multilayered mode of exegesis, with added philosophical qualities as shown in excurses, elaborations,
and creative reinterpretations of the text. I have used Simplicius’s commentaries as a particularly good example of this “culture of the commentary” (the phrase is Sluiter’s 2000, p. 200). It is even likely that his comprehensive approach eclipsed large parts of the tradition.
Apart from a slowly evolving form (or format), the genre also developed a sense of self‐awareness in two particular ways. Early on commentators became aware of their exegetical predecessors, which meant that the activity of explaining the central primary text also required taking earlier clarifications into account. This would, of course, add a certain complexity to the exegesis. Secondly, the writers of commentary reflected on their work and offered methodological considerations on the requirements for good commentary. Some emphasized criteria such as clarity, a broad knowledge of the author under scrutiny, and awareness of one’s ideological preferences (“bias”). But it has also become clear that these works were not explaining and interpreting the text as a purpose in itself, but as a result of an educational system that used this exegetical format as a serious platform for doingphilosophy and considering life choices. Contemplating the world by way of evaluative exegesis of the great thinkers of old was a philosophical activity and a way of life.
REFERENCES
Alberti, Antonina A. and Sharples, R.W. ed. 1999. Aspasius: The Earliest Extant Commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Armstrong, A.H. (1966). Plotinus. Enneads. Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. 1999. Damascius: The Philosophical History. Athens: Agape.
Baltussen, Han. (2004). Plato Protagoras 340–48: Commentary in the making? In: Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Latin and Arabic Commentaries (ed. P. Adamson, H. Baltussen, and M.W.F. Stone), 21–35. BICS Supplements, London: ICS.
Baltussen, Han. (2007). From polemic to exegesis: The ancient philosophical commentary. In: Genres in Philosophy (ed. Jonathan Lavery). Poetics Today 28.2: 247–281.
Baltussen, Han. (2008). Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator. London: Duckworth.
Baltussen, Han. (2016). Philosophers, scholars, exegetes. The ancient philosophical commentary from Plato to Simplicius. In: Classical Commentaries (ed. Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray), 173–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bastianini, Guido and Sedley, David N. ed. (1995). Anonymous, Commentarium in Platonis Theaetetum. In: Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini, vol. 3 (ed. Guido Bastianini and David N. Sedley), 227–562. Florence: Olschki.
Chaniotis, Angelos. (2004a). Epigraphic evidence for the philosopher Alexander of Aphrodisias. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 47: 79–81.
Chaniotis, Angelos. (2004b). New inscriptions from Aphrodisias (1995–2001). American Journal of Archaeology 108: 377–416.
Cherniss, Harold. (1977). Ancient forms of philosophic discourse. In: Harold Cherniss, Selected Papers (ed. L. Tarán), 14–35. Leiden: Brill.
Dillon, John. (1987). Iamblichus of Chalcis. Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.36.2: 862–909.
Dodds, E.R. 1963. Proclus. Elements of Theology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
Gatti, Maria Luisa. (1996). Plotinus: The Platonic tradition and the foundation of Neoplatonism. In: Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, (ed. Lloyd P. Gerson), 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gerson, Lloyd P. (2005). Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Griffin, Michael J. (2015). Aristotle’s Categories in the Early Roman Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hadot, Ilsetraut. (1978). Le problème du néoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès et Simplicius. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Huby, Pamela M. (1997). Priscian: Theophrastus on Sense Perception. London: Duckworth.
Kahn, Charles H. (2003). Writing philosophy: Prose and poetry from Thales to Plato. In: Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece (ed. Harvey Yunis), 139–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karamanolis, George. (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle’s Philosophy from Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kechagia, Eleni. (2011). Plutarch Against Colotes: A Lesson in History of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klitenic Wear, Sarah. (2013). Another link in the golden chain: Aeneas of Gaza and Zacharias Scholasticus on Plotinus Enn. 4.3. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 53: 145–165.
Mansfeld, Jaap. (1994). Prolegomena: Questions to Be Settled Before the Study of an Author or a Text. Leiden: Brill.
McKirahan, Richard. trans. (2001). Simplicius, On Aristotle’s Physics 8.6–10. London: Duckworth.
Rashed, Marwan. (2011). Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Commentaire perdu à la Physique d’Aristote, livres IV–VIII. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Schäublin, Christoph. (1977). Homerum ex Homero. Museum Helveticum 34: 221–227.
Sedley, David N. (1997). Plato's Auctoritas and the rebirth of the Commentary tradition. In: Roman Aristotle (ed. Jonathan Barnes and Miriam Griffin), 110–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sellars, John. (2006). Stoicism. Chesham: Acumen/Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sharples, R.W. (1987). Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and innovation. ANRW II 36.2: 1176–1243.
Sluiter, Ineke. (2000). The dialectics of genre: Some aspects of secondary literature and genre in antiquity. In Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons and Society (ed. Mary Depew and Dirk Obbink), 183–203. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, Wesley. (1979). The Hippocratic Tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Sorabji, R.R.K. ed. (1990). Aristotle Transformed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Strange, S. (1992). Porphyry. On Aristotle Categories. London: Duckworth.
Tarrant, Harold. (1996). Orality and Plato’s narrative dialogues. In: Voice into Text: Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece (ed. Ian Worthington), 129–147. Leiden: Brill.
Urmson, J.O. trans. (1992). Simplicius. Corollaries on Place and Time. London: Duckworth.
Urmson, J.O. trans., with Peter Lautner. (2001). On Aristotle Physics 3. London: Duckworth.
Westerink, L.G. (1962). Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Amsterdam: North‐Holland.
Wildberg, Christian. (2005). Philosophy in the age of Justinian. In: The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (ed. Michael Maas), 316–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yunis, Harvey. ed. (2003). Written Texts and the Rise of Literate Culture in Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHAPTER NINETEEN
Biblical Commentary
Marie‐Pierre Bussières
19.1 Introduction
The late antique practice of composing commentaries in order not only to compile and circulate knowledge but also to create it has increasingly attracted scholars in recent years (Lössl and Watt 2011, p. 2). Among the wealth of commenting literature produced in antiquity, biblical commentary represents a large corpus, long studied with the purpose of understanding the history of dogma. Little attention has been paid to the form, or rather forms, commentaries took, as they have not been perceived as cultural texts with didactic aims of their own (Shuttleworth Kraus 2002, pp. 6–7). This tendency has been recently partially addressed (Pollman 2009; Rousseau 2013). If it is true that a postclassical text is consciously written with the admission that it needs to be read against the framework imposed by tradition (Pelttari 2014, p. 49), the practice of commentary is a literary act “inasmuch as it effects a new reading of the reference text” (Pelttari 2014, p. 28), which is the primary purpose of exegesis. Commenting, therefore, leaves the realm of technical literature and enters that of letters.
Occasionally, biblical commentary is labeled as a literary genre (Geerlings 2000, p. 199; Pollman 2009, p. 268), but, when it has been so labeled, function rather than defining formal characteristics determine the genre. “
Commenting literature” seems, therefore, a more fitting designation, rather than the traditional “commentary,” which gives the impression of generic uniformity. Commenting literature evokes a larger categorization that includes scholia; hypomnemata; treatises; running commentaries; collections of chapters, with or without a prologue to the commented text (Mejor 2004); and even letters (Teske 2004). This perspective speaks directly to the goal of this volume, as the necessity to interpret the Bible engaged late antique authors to make use of many diverse literary forms.
For many commentators, exegetical activity was not merely pedagogical, pastoral, or polemical, but a literary pursuit appropriate for men of erudition. Emerging from various traditions that shared the same purpose of making a text meaningful for their readers, commentaries, in varying guises, constitute a large part of the body of literary production of late antique Christian authors.
Perhaps nothing shows the range of approaches authors took when commenting on Scripture better than a sample of the collection of texts treating the book of Genesis (Pollmann 2009, p. 258; Young 1997, pp. 54–62). These run from a protreptic work of the second century in Greek to a Latin paraphrase of the Old Testament composed in Gaul in the fifth century. This chapter will focus on works explaining one verse, Genesis 1:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion’” (Revised Standard Version), in order to show how different the forms of Biblical commentary could be. The texts will include Theophilus of Antioch’s To Autolycos, Origen’s Homilies on Genesis, Basil of Caesarea’s and Ambrose of Milan’s Ninth Homily on the Creation, Ambrosiaster’s Question 45: On the Image, Augustine of Hippo’s Literal Interpretation of Genesis, and Cyprian of Gaul’s Heptateuchos. Together these authors will show how explanations of the same biblical text were fashioned and refashioned in ways suited to particular occasions and audiences, and with literary devices that suited the various authors’ voices.
