Professional Documents
Culture Documents
142
143
144
145
146
mentioned on p. 50, could be another remnant of this psychological mathematicism), so that he repeated of psychology
what he had said about it in another writing in which the
mathematical character of the soul was fully accepted. But in
either case, it is unlikely that Iamblichus quoted from De anima.
To assume this would be tantamount to the assertion that he
lifted the words precisely to reset them in a most appropriate
setting. While this is not impossible, it is not very probable
either.
But once we became aware of how inappropriate these words
are in the context of De anima, we shall be inclined to ask:
were they actually used by Aristotle? A glance at the BiehlApelt apparatus (Aristoteles De animas ed. G. Biehl, O. Apelt
[1926]) reveals that the words from !Lwov to e!vot~ (p. 121)
were considered spurious by Alexander Aphrodisias, according
to Philoponus (In Arist. De an., p. 24, 7-13 Hayduck). We do not
know how Alexander proved his assertion that the words came
~~6)6ev and XotTOC 7tpOa6~Kl)v; the reasons given by Philoponus
("if Alexander had acknowledged the passage as genuine, he
would have been compelled to admit the immateriality and
immortality of the soul") are obviously not Alexander's own.
But is it too much to assume that he did not read them in his
manuscript or found some annotation in it to the effect that
though written by Aristotle they were later crossed out by him
or that they had been inserted from a margin where somebody
had quoted them from the Protrepticus? In any case and whichever alternative we accept, Alexander's testimony only reveals
what should be obvious: the words in question are out of place
in De anima.
There is still another passage in Aristotle paralleling the
De anima and Protrepticus passages. It is Topics VIn 1, 157a9.
Here we read: ema~!Ll) ema~!Ll)'; ~eAT(6)V ~ Tij) tXxp~~eaTepot e!Vot~
~ Tij) ~eAT~6v6)v. Furthermore TWV E1t~aTl)!Lwv ott !Lev 6e6)pl)T~Xott
ott ~& 7tpotXT~Xott ott ~& 7tOLl)T~Xot( - these words being an illustration
of a ~Lot[peat,; TWV cruyyevwv.
Is it not rather obvious that the illustration is taken by
Aristotle from a work of his own, which is the Protrepticus? In this
work the superiority of theoretical over practical knowledge
was proved by pointing out that the former has the quali-
147
148
ev
et87) 7tPOO"IXX't"EOV
ExOCO"'t"IXLC; 't"1X~C; o"uVOUo"IXL~ &pcu't"6>V't"oc 't"e xlXt
&"MyXOV't"1X 't"1i IJ.~ XcxA6>~ (7)6kv't"lX (991 C).
Iamblichus simply cuts this sentence in two. After &V &XOCO"'t"IXL~
he replaces 't"1X~~ o"uVOUo"IXL~ by 't"1X~~ 't"6>V 1J.1X67)lJ.oc't"cuv et8~O"eo"Lv
adding the words ~cu~ &v e:~eupculJ.ev 't"ov OAOV x60"lJ.ov, and now
149
150
151
152
153
corpus. But at the same time it becomes clear that what Aristotle
means by mathematics when he speaks of it as one of the three
branches of theoretical knowledge, is Platonistic mathematics.
And also the Proclus passage discussed in the previous chapter
and claimed for Aristotle can more justly be estimated as
expressing Aristotle's interest in mathematics and proving him
to be its apologist against attacks coming from different quarters.
Appendix
Ct. W. Jaeger, Paideia, v. J2 (1945) 311-321; E. Hofimalln, "Aristoteles' Philosophie der Freundschaft" in: Festgabe ... Rickert, Buhl-Baden, n.d. [1933J 8-36, esp.
16 t.
154
Appendix 2
155
156
rather than give him credit for originality. But above all, Rabinowitz' defense of Iamblichus' originality is entirely beside the
point. It presupposes that Iamblichus claimed originality for his
Protrepticus. We shall presently see that this presupposition is
entirely unfounded.
The above passage from the Protrepticus is only a sample (the
only one, treated by Rabinowitz). But there are others.
Protrepticus, ch. V contains on p. 30, 13-31, 19 Pistelli excerpts
from Timaeus 89 E-90 D, among them 23 Teubner lines which
are in 99% a verbatim copy of one continuous passage (Tim.
90 B-D).
The same chapter on p. 31, 19-33, 27 Pistelli contains a series
of excerpts (one again of 23 Teubner lines) from Plato's Republic
IX 588 E-591 E, with some slight, strictly stylistic changes.
Ch. XIII, p. 61, 7-62, 29 Pistelli is a literal copy of Phaedo
64 A-65 D (with some phrases due to the dialogical character of
the original omitted) ; p. 63, 2-65, 6 Pistelli is another such copy
of Phaedo 65 D-67 D; and on additional 8 pages (63, 2-65, 6;
65,7-65, 18; 65, 22-67, 16; 67, 18-70,9; 70, 16-71, I Pistelli) we
have nothing but literal excerpts from Phaedo.
Now, all this obviously not only gives us the right but makes it
our duty to ask: from whom did Iamblichus copy the rest of his
Protrepticus, particularly the section between ch. V, p. 33, 27
Pistelli and ch. XIII, p. 61, 7 Pistelli? The question whether he
copied this section we hardly have the right to ask - it is a
question settled in advance. Only when we approach the Protrepticus of Iamblichus as if it was meant to be taken as his original
work in our sense of the word 'original' would such a question be
justified. But the opposite is true. Iamblichus intends to exhibit
his originality in the appropriate selection and arranging of texts
exemplifying how Pythagoreans exhorted to philosophy. From
what we should call a book of readings (with some connecting
texts and notes) it differs only in that it feels under no obligation
to state its sources. But of course it is ridiculous to assume that it
is a piece of plagiarism. Under such circumstances Rabinowitz'
defense of Iamblichus' originality is wayward.
All this is perfectly obvious to anybody who simply paged the
whole Protrepticus looking at the apparatus of Pistelli. With the
help of this apparatus it easy to see that of the 126 Teubner pages
157
158
purpose of I sc. But Aristotle's name does not even once occur in I sc.
Again these facts alone are sufficient proof that it is imperative
to assume that all of 1sc consists of excerpts and was not meant
to be taken as Iamblichus' own work in our usual sense of the
word. Again this is perfectly obvious from the apparatus and the
index of Festa.
Now, the two passages claimed by Rose for Pseudo-Aristotle
and by others for Aristotle himself, viz. his fr.52 and 53 (ch.
XXVI, p.79, 1-83,2 and 83,6-22 F) immediately precede the
passage quoted above, which is taken from De part. animo This in
itself suggests that the author from which they are derived (that
they could be a work of Iamblichus himself is as unlikely as it
could be) might also be Aristotle. This is confirmed by a parallel
passage in Proclus, In Eucl. As Rabinowitz devoted considerable
care to showing that the passage in Proclus proves nothing of this
kind we must present the texts in question in extenso.
1sc. ch. XXVI, p. 83, 13--20F
Proclus, In Eucl. 28, 13--17Fr
xac(..OL ..ae; ILev tiAAace; (scll ...exvace;) 8~AO~ 8e ..0 8L' eacuTIjv e:tVacL ..o~e;
1ta.v..ee; auve~OPILWGL ..LILwv..ee; (LE:..LOUGLV aclpeTIjv (scll. TIjv
XOLvjj xact ..oue; ILLaOoue; ..o~e; ILac6l)ILac"LX~V &1tLcnijIL~V) 0 xact
lXOUGL 8L86vue; ..oue; 8e ..txu..tx ' ApLG't'o"t'eA~e; 1tOU IP~GLV ..0
(scll. ILac61jILac..ac) 1tpacYILac..euo(Lk- IL~8evoe; ILLaOou 1tpOXeLILevou ..o~e;
voue; o?> ILOVOV o?> 1tpo"t'pe7to(LE:v ~1j"t'OUG~V ~ILCU~ tv o:AtYlf> Xpovlf>
cXAAa XtxL 8LtxXCUAuoILev 1tOAAa.XLe; "t'OLCltU"t'1jV nt80GLV TIjv ..Wv ILClt61jILa."t'CUV 6ecupttxv Aot~e~v ...
Prima facie, Proclus seems to identify the whole passage of I sc
as belonging to Aristotle. '0 XCltL 'ApLG..o..eAYje; 1tOO IPYjGLV refers
clearly to the proof ('proof that students of mathematics chose it
for its own sake is also provided by what Aristotle says some
place [or: in some words like these]), viz. that it made so rapid
advances in so short a time in spite of the fact that its students
could expect no rewards'}.
This interpretation is criticized by Rabinowitz. It could be,
he says, that the reference to Aristotle does not cover the proof.
His translation: 'What makes clear the fact that.mathematics is
desirable in and of itself for those who pursue the study (which is
Aristotle's assertion too, somewhere ... )' offers an alternative
interpretation. But though not impossible, this interpretation is
very unlikely. The construction is 8Yj:A0~ 8e TO (sci!. that mathe-
159
matics is pursued for its own sake) 0 xoct 'ApLCJ'ro't'&A'rjc;; 7tOU <p'rjaLV.
The construction is not 8'rjAO~ 8& 't'o (scll. that mathematics is
desirable for its own sake, as also Aristotle says somewhere) 't'O
(.L'rj8e:voc;; (.LLa6ou 7tPOxe:LfL&VOU etc. In other words, the construction is
't'6-g-'t"o, not 't'o-'t"o. It is unlikely that Proclus should have quoted
Aristotle only to buttress his assertion that mathematics is
pursued for its own sake rather than for his proof of this fact.
Let us try to draw up something like a balance sheet. The
minimum which Rabinowitz must concede is:
A. It is extremely unlikely that Isc. ch. XXVI should be the
property of Iamblichus.
B. It is possible that the passage in Proclus establishes as the
source of Iamblichus Aristotle.
The maximum which must be conceded to Rabinowitz is:
A. It is barely possible that ch. XXVI is Iamblichus' own
property.
B. It cannot be ruled out that Proclus' reference to Aristotle
covers only part of the passage in Iamblichus.
Let it be left to the reader whether this balance sheet invalidates Rose's conclusion as to the source of the whole passage in
Iamblichus. To me it seems that it does no such thing.
Not that Rose's proof should amount to certainty. But it is
precisely uncertainty which compels us to undertake Quellen/orschung. Rabinowitz is so familiar with the famous dictum of
Aristotle that each subject matter has different standards of
certainty that he could easily have asked himself "What constitutes a proof as far as QueUenjorschung is concerned?" And if
somebody should be inclined to say "The fact that Quellenjorschung can never yield complete certainty should discourage us
from undertaking to search after hidden sources" - let him be
reminded that in the case of I sc (as in that of the Protrepticus)
the facts are such that they compel us to ascertain its sources.
Had Rabinowitz limited himself to reminding us that none of the
texts assigned by modern scholars to the Protrepticus of Aristotle
are in our texts explicitly attributed to him it would have been a
meritorious reminder to those who not participating actively in
the study of Greek philosophy may form an entirely wrong
opinion as to why Rose, Walzer, Ross, etc. print certain texts as
belonging to that work. Unfortunately, Rabinowitz overshoots
his mark by miles.