Sunteți pe pagina 1din 320

Boethius on Mind, Grammar and Logic

Philosophia Antiqua

A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy

Previous Editors

J.H. Waszink† W.J. Verdenius† J.C.M. Van Winden

Edited by

K.A. Algra F.A.J. de Haas J. Mansfeld C.J. Rowe D.T. Runia Ch. Wildberg

VOLUME 127

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/pha

Boethius on Mind, Grammar and Logic

A Study of Boethius’ Commentaries on Peri hermeneias

By

Taki Suto

on Mind, Grammar and Logic A Study of Boethius’ Commentaries on Peri hermeneias By Taki Suto
on Mind, Grammar and Logic A Study of Boethius’ Commentaries on Peri hermeneias By Taki Suto

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2012

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Suto, Taki. Boethius on mind, grammar, and logic : a study of Boethius' Commentaries on Peri hermeneias

/ by Taki Suto. p. cm. – (Philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687 ; v. 127) Based on the author's thesis (Ph. D.)–St. Louis University, 2008, originally presented under the title: Boethius on language, mind, and reality. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 978-90-04-21418-7 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Boethius, d. 524. Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Peri hermeneias. 2. Aristotle. De interpretatione. 3. Language and languages–Philosophy. 4. Logic, Ancient. I. Title. II. Series.

B439.B643S88 2012

189–dc23

ISSN 0079-1687 ISBN 978 90 04 21418 7

2011033833

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

To my family, who led the way

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

 

xi

Note to

the

Reader

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xv

Chart : Contents of Boethius’ Two Commentaries on Peri

 

hermeneias

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xvii

a. The Correspondences between Boethius’ Commentaries

 
 

and

Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

xvii

b. Boethius’

Divisions of the Commentaries

 

xviii

 

b-i. The First Commentary on Peri hermeneias

 

xviii

b-ii. The

Second Commentary

 

xviii

Chart

:

Chronology

of Boethius’ Works

xix

Chart : Chronology of Major Thinkers and Writers

 

xxi

Chart : Relationships among Ancient Commentators

xxiii

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

.

The Scope of This Work

 

1

.

Boethius and the Aristotelian Tradition in the West

 

3

.

The Past Studies of Boethius’ Commentaries on Peri hermeneias

 

7

.

The Focus of This Work

 

8

 

PART ONE

 

BOETHIUS ON WORDS AND MIND

 

I. The Significatum of Spoken Words

 

17

.

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

17

.

Kretzmann’s Interpretation of ‘Significatum

 

20

.

Is ‘Significare’ a Technical Expression for ‘Sense’?

 

22

.

The Significatum of Spoken Words

 

26

..

..

..

. Spoken Words Signify Thoughts and Things A Proposition Signifies Truth and Falsity

Spoken

Words

Signify

Thoughts

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

26

31

35

.

Empty Names and Truth-Value Gaps

 

37

..

Are there Empty Names?

37

..

Is there a Truth-Value Gap?

39

viii

contents

II. Words as ‘Notae

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

43

 

.

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

43

.

Σ μ λ ν’ and ‘Σημε ν’ in Aristotle

45

..

Σ μ λ ν’ (a)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

45

..

Σημε ν’ (a)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

48

..

Σημε νΣ μ λ ν

51

.

Boethius’ Latin Translation of ‘Nota

52

..

..

Why

Why

not

not

Symbolum’ for ‘Σ μ λ ν’?

52

Signum’ for ‘Σημε ν’?

58

.

..

..

..

..

Conclusion

Nota

Nota

Nota

Nota

in Cicero’s Topics

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

64

Derived from ‘Noscere

65

as a Conventional Token

66

with ‘Similitudo’ .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

70

74

III.

Three Types of Speech

77

.

.

.

. Kretzmann’s Questions

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

77

79

The Answer to Kretzmann’s Second Question

81

..

Universal Mental Speech in Boethius’ Texts

 

81

..

Magee’s Answer to Kretzmann’s Second Question

 

84

..

The

Problems in Magee’s Interpretation

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

88

The Status of the Noun-Verb Distinction in the Mind

91

.

.. Order of Speaking (Ordo Orandi)

94

..

The Order of Things, Thoughts, Spoken Words and

 

..

..

..

. Ordering of Nature (Ordinatio Naturae)

Written

.

Words

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

94

96

Signification and Causation

99

The Order for a Speaker and a Listener

105

.

Formations of Mental Speech and Spoken Speech

 

108

.

Conclusion

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

111

PART TWO

BOETHIUS ON LOGIC AND GRAMMAR

 

IV.

Nouns, Verbs, and Conjunctions

117

.

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

117

.

. .. The Historical Background: From Plato to Donatus

Parts

of

Speech

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

120

120

contents

ix

 

..

..

The

. Boethius’ Delineation of Logic vs. Grammar

Boethius’

.

.

Division

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

124

126

.

Noun and the

 

129

..

The Common Conditions for the Noun and the Verb 130

..

The

Noun-Verb Distinction

132

..

Indefinite Nouns and Verbs and Cases of Nouns and

 

..

The

. Different Noun-Verb Categories

Verbs

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

135

138

.

Conjunction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

139

.

Conclusion

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

147

V. The Varieties of Speech

Introduction

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

151

151

.

. Imperfect vs. Perfect

152

.

Declarative vs. Other Four Species

 

152

.

Distinctions for Explaining the Unity of Propositions: An

 

Overview

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

155

.

Single vs. Multiple

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

159

..

..

Single

Single

Affirmations and Negations

 

159

Conditional Propositions

162

.

Simple vs. Composite

170

..

..

..

‘Term’ (Terminus)

171

‘Diction’

174

The Simple Proposition

175

.

The Combined Distinctions

178

.

Single by Nature vs. Single by Stipulation

 

181

.

Conclusion

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

182

VI. The Verb ‘To Be’

.

.

.

.

. De Rijk’s Claim

Introduction

.

‘Is’

in

Boethius’

. . . Monographs on Logic

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

187

187

188

191

.

‘Is’ in Boethius’ Exposition of Chapter  (‘Tertium

 

Adiacens’)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

194

.

Approaches to ‘Is’ (est) in Peri hermeneias, Chapter 

 

199

..

..

..

..

Aristotle’s Text and Boethius’ Translation

 

199

Boethius’ Exposition

202

Ammonius’ Exposition

212

Differences between Boethius and Ammonius

217

.

Conclusion

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

219

x

contents

VII. General Conclusions

223

.

Some Significant Features of Boethius’ Semantics and Logic 224

.

Boethius

on

Mind, Grammar, and Logic

 

226

.

Boethius on Aristotle, the Stoics, and Neoplatonists

 

231

Bibliography

.

. Primary Sources and Selected Translations

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

237

237

 

..

Boethius’

Original Works

237

..

Boethius’

Latin Translations

238

Works of Other Ancient and Medieval Thinkers

 

239

.

.. Secondary and Modern Literatures

249

.

Dictionaries, Fragments or Excerpt Collections and

 

.

. Electronic Databases

Reference Books

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

266

267

Index

of Ancient and Medieval Texts

269

Index of Names (Ancient and Medieval Authors) and Subjects

 

285

Index

of Modern Authors (Selective)

294

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is based upon my Ph.D. dissertation at St. Louis University entitled “Boethius on Language, Mind, and Reality: A Study of Boethius’

Commentary on Peri hermeneias,” which I defended in April . All of the chapters have been revised and expanded, except for Chapter , which is completely new. From the beginning of the dissertation project, my dissertation supervisor, Prof. Jack Marler, gave me innumerable sug- gestions. He kindly undertook the task of reviewing all the early versions of this work. Prof. William Charron and Prof. Colleen McCluskey, the other members of my dissertation committee, gave me good feedback, sometimes checked my grammar and raised insightful questions during my defense. In my short visit to Copenhagen in September  and the years that followed, Prof. Sten Ebbesen generously devoted far more of his time to this work than it may have deserved. Thanks to his comments,

I eliminated many errors that were discovered in the dissertation. Some

significant changes made to the dissertation are due to his suggestions,

but beyond that I decided to plunge into a rereading of Boethius’ texts and other relevant works and make changes as I saw fit. During my two- month stay in Toronto in the winter of , and in my short trip back to the city in the summer of , Prof. John Magee kindly shared his vast experience of Boethius’ works with me. With his help, I avoided

misinterpreting some of Boethius’ texts that are discussed in this work.

I had the fortunate opportunity to consult Prof. Irène Rosier-Catach

about the medieval grammatical tradition during her stay as a visiting professor at Kyoto University in the summer of . Her suggestions for the manuscript lent further accuracy to this work. Even though this project started as my dissertation at St. Louis Univer- sity, the original idea had been planted before reaching St. Louis. Prof. Kohei Yamamoto, my first teacher of medieval philosophy, introduced me to the importance of Medieval Aristotelianism and the Patristic tradi- tion. Prof. Masashi Nakahata’s courses on Aristotle deepened my interests in Aristotle and his commentators. I owe some of the ideas in this work to his lecture on Aristotle’s philosophy of language at Kyoto University in . I have been continuously and greatly indebted to Prof. Shinsuke Kawazoe, the director of my first dissertation onThomas Aquinas, for his

xii

acknowledgements

encouragement during my studies abroad and also for his helpful feed- back on my writing. I once gave up on publishing this work as a book, but

it was he who pushed me back toward this project. Without him and his

faith in me, this book may never have come out. The M. Litt. course of St. Andrews-Stirling opened my eyes to the significance of the problem of language in philosophy. This one-year stay at St. Andrews acquainted me with Prof. Stephen Read, who gave me encouragement and comments at the beginning of this project. In addition, Prof. Alan Millar, with whom I finished a M. Litt. thesis on John McDowell, gave me advice on reading philosophical texts and considering connections between philosophical problems. All of my teachers’ ideas and approaches toward research in philoso- phy and in the history of philosophy have guided me along my journey. As long as I continue my career in this field, I am convinced that their teachings will continue to do so no matter the physical distance between us. My colleagues at Kyoto University have kept me working by listening

to my questions and giving helpful feedback. Dr. Terumasa Okusa took

on the task of double-checking the Greek parts of this work. Mr. Perrin Lindelauf suffered through three years of odd sentences and ancient philosophy, but he was a great help in getting this book in shape for publication.

Most chapters in this work, at least in part, have been presented in

different conferences in Japan, the United States and Italy. I am indebted

to the comments given at these conferences for improving my arguments.

A portion of an earlier version of Chapter  is published in The Words in

Medieval Logic, Theology and Psychology: Acts of the XIII International Colloquium of the Société Internationale pour l’Étude de la Philosophie Médievale, Kyoto,  September– October  (Brepols, ). My long schooling and research in different countries was feasible by generousfunding from different organizations: Japan Society for the Pro- motion of Science (–, –, –), The Rotary Foun- dation (–), and The Graduate School of Saint Louis University (–). Thanking all the people surrounding me both mentioned and not mentioned who have helped me in various ways, I would like to dedicate this work to my family members who have pursued careers and knowl- edge in western sciences and arts. I think they have come to understand the spirit of Western cultures without losing themselves. Engaged in dif- ferent disciplines, they have been my first exemplars. Without them, I

acknowledgements

xiii

would not have started my career and even if I had, I would probably not have continued. Some of them passed away while I was writing the dissertation, but their musical compositions and drawings remind me of their diligence and humor. Compared with them, I am afraid that I have been less diligent. I hope that I have touched upon the esssence of a great Western thinker (Boethius) and a great Western tradition (Aristotelian- ism) at least in some parts of this work. But I’ll leave that to my readers to decide.

Kyoto, May  Taki Suto

NOTE TO THE READER

Quotations of the Greek and Latin literatures are taken from the editions which are listed in the bibliography. The translations are basically mine unless noted otherwise. In giving titles of these works, I often use abbreviations which are customarily used or easily identifiable by those who are familiar with them. For example, ‘PH’ is the abbreviation of Peri hermeneias; ‘In PH’ stands for a commentary on Peri hermeneias; ‘In PH 2 ’ is Boethius’ second commentary on Peri hermeneias. All the abbreviations are listed in the bibliography along with the titles of the works. When they are cited, line numbers in critical editions are attached to the page numbers divided by a period, e.g., .–., or .–. Some of these editions may not be easily accessible to the reader. For the reader’s sake, I sometimes indicate the pagination of other editions as well. For example, “Boethius, De cat. syll. . = c.” The text referred to is on page , line  in Christina Thomsen-Thörnqvist’s critical edition of Boethius’ De syllogismo categorico, which is on page , column C in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. . The alternate editions are also listed in the bibliography. Unless I note otherwise in the footnotes of the quotations, I cite texts from these editions without any alteration, save the capitalization of the beginning of each sentence. When an editor of a critical edition inserts a word that is not found in manuscripts, the editor usually marks it with .

Thus, if I quote, “continet nec propositionem totam,” this indicates that the editor of the critical edition inserts ‘nec’ and I follow the emendation. When I have a different reading from the edition, I put the editor’s

erat [Meiser: erit]” means

reading in square brackets. For instance, that I read ‘erat’ while Meiser has ‘erit.’

chart 

CONTENTS OF BOETHIUS’ TWO COMMENTARIES ON PERI HERMENEIAS

a. The Correspondences between Boethius’ Commentaries and Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias

Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias *

The First commentary **

The Second commentary **

Ch. : a–

–

–

Ch. : a–b

–

–

Ch. : b–b

–

–

Ch. : b–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–b

–

–

Ch. : b–b

–

–

Ch. : b–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–a

–

–

Ch. : a–b

–

–

* Chapter and page number in Bekker’s edition. ** Page number in Meiser’s edition.

xviii

chart 

b. Boethius’ Divisions of the Commentaries

b-i. The First Commentary on Peri hermeneias

The division

Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias *

Boethius’s commentary **

Book 

Ch. –: a–b Ch. –: b–b

–

Book 

–

* Chapter and page number in Bekker’s edition. ** Page number in Meiser’s edition.

b-ii. The Second Commentary

The division

Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias *

Boethius’s commentary **

Book 

Ch. –: a–b Ch. –: b–a Ch. : a–b Ch. : b–a Ch. –: b–a Ch. : a–b

–

Book 

–

Book 

–

Book 

–

Book 

–

Book 

–

* Chapter and page number in Bekker’s edition. ** Page number in Meiser’s edition.

chart 

CHRONOLOGY OF BOETHIUS’ WORKS

 

Magee &

 

Title

Marenbon 1

De Rijk 2

Obertello 3

Guillaumin 4

De

arithmetica

c. –

 

c. –

De

musica

c. –

c. –

De

syllogismo categorico

–

c. –

–

–

In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, editio prima

 

c.

–

c. –

c. 

In

Categorias Aristotelis



c. –c.  –



In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, editio secunda

after 

c. –

–

De fide catholica [OS IV]

 

before c. 

 

–?

before 

Contra Eutychen et Nestorium [OS V]



 



–

In Peri hermeneias commen- tarium, editio prima

c.

–

–



In Peri hermeneias commen- tarium, editio secunda

c.

–

c. –

–

De divisione

 

–?

–

–

after 

De

hypotheticis syllogismis

c. –

–



De

hebdomadibus [OS III]

c. –

–

c. 

Utrum pater et filius

[OS

II] c. –

–

De trinitate [OS I]

 

c. –

–

–

In Topica Ciceronis commentaria

c.

–

before 

–

De topicis differentiis c. –

before



–

c. 

Introductio ad syllogismos categoricos

after 

?

–

probably 

 

Consolatio philosophiae

 

–

probably  –

 

OS = Opuscula sacra

1 Magee and Marenbon  (refer to other literature including De Rijk ).

2 De Rijk  (especially, –,  and ).

3 Obertello , : – (“Tabula cronologica,” ).

4 Guillaumin , xvi–xxi.

chart 

CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR THINKERS AND WRITERS

Plato** Aristotle** Epicurus** Plautus Dionysius Thrax Varro Cicero** Nigidius Figulus Virgil** Seneca, Lucius* Pliny the Elder

c. – bc /–/ bc /–/ bc c. – bc c. –c.  bc – bc – bc  bc– ad – bc born between  bc and  ad, / ad– ad

and died  ad

Quintilian

born around  ad and died in the s.

Plutarch

born

before  ad, and died after  ad

Ptolemy*

wrote between

–c.  ad

Aspasius** Apollonius Dyscolus

c. – ad  century ad

Apuleius

c. –after  ad

 

Aulus Gellius

c.

–after  ad

Galen Sextus Empiricus Alexander of Aphrodisias**

–c.  ad – ad appointed Head of the Aristotelian Philosophy

Plotinus* Porphyry** Iamblichus* Victorinus, Marius* Praetextatus, Vettius Agorius** Dexippus Themistius** Donatus, Aelius*

Martianus Capella

between  and  ad –/ ad –c.  ad c. –c.  ad th century ad c. – ad fl. c.  ad c. –c.  ad fl.

 ad

Augustine* Syrianus**

– ad appointed Head of the Academy in /, and died c.  ad fl. c.  ad

Proclus

/– ad

Ammonius

c.

–after  ad

Boethius

c. –c. / ad

Philoponus, John

c. –s ad

Priscian

–th century ad

Simplicius

wrote after  ad

Cassiodorus

c. –c.  A