134 | CHAPTER 5
Though Plato, not Aristotle, had the last word in theolog y, the over-
whelming bulk of the philosophical literature produced in fifth- and sixth-
century Alexandria—which along with Athens was the main center of philo-
sophical teaching at this period—consisted of commentaries on Aristotle’s
work, notably the Categories and the other logical treatises, but also the Phys-
ics, On the soul, the Metaphysics, and others.^31 Probably only few students got
to Plato. Even Aristotle was perceived as anything but easy. The sixth- century
Syriac scholar Paul the Persian estimated “ten to twenty years” for getting a
grip on him, allowing for occasional refreshment.^32 But Aristotle was a gift to
overachievers, allowing Augustine of Hippo (d. 430) a chance to mock his
rhetoric teacher,^33 and Proclus of Athens (d. 485) to crow about how he had
got it all done in “less than two years”—though he seems to have left no
commentaries.^34
Commentaries might be compiled from lecture notes, or inserted as mar-
ginalia in the teacher’s commentary. In either case the pupil’s work came to be
regarded as his own rather than his teacher’s, and knowledge achieved a seam-
less progression.^35 But alongside this conservative, accumulative approach to
exegesis, commentaries also offered a flexible format that left room for inno-
vation. The text could be analyzed as minutely as one liked, and Aristotle’s
coherence with both himself and Plato plainly demonstrated—on such mat-
ters the disjointed, allusive manner of Aristotle’s esoteric works offered plenty
of scope for exegesis. Old interpretations could be revisited and new ones
propounded in the guise of open- ended discussion of possibilities. Fresh ideas
were advanced cumulatively, with due reverence accorded both the author
and earlier commentators—except that older commentaries were unlikely to
be recopied unless outstanding like those of Alexander of Aphrodisias.
There was no question of investigating, in this line- by- line format, such
modern concerns as Aristotle’s personal intellectual development, in relation
to either Plato or himself. It was assumed all his works purveyed the same
monolithic teaching.^36 Moreover his prestige was such that he might still
provide the conceptual and linguistic framework even when he was being
31 Catalogues of Greek commentaries on Aristotle: R. Goulet, “L’oeuvre d’Aristote,” D PA 1.437–
41; M. Chase, “Les commentaires grecs et byzantins,” D PA Suppl. 113–21.
32 D. Gutas, Greek philosophers in the Arabic tradition (Aldershot 2000) IX.235.
33 Augustine, Confessions [ed. J. J. O’Donnell (Oxford 1992); tr. H. Chadwick (Oxford 1991)]
4.16.28–29.
34 Marinus, Proclus [5:25] 9, 13; cf. Proclus, Commentary on the Cratylus of Plato [ed. G. Pasquali
(Leipzig 1908)] 2 (Peripatetic logic accessible to all but the most stupid); C. Hasnaoui, “La tradition des
commentaires grecs sur le De interpretatione (PH) d’Aristote jusqu’au VIIe s.,” D PA Suppl. 156.
35 See, e.g., Marinus, Proclus [5:25] 12, 26, 27; R. Sorabji, “John Philoponus,” in id. (ed.), Philopo-
nus [4:21] 43–44. On commentaries generally, see I. Hadot, “Der fortlaufende philosophische Kommen-
tar,” in W. Geerlings and C. Schulze (eds), Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden 2002)
183–99; Fazzo, in Adamson and others (eds), Philosophy, science and exegesis [1:35] 1.1–19.
36 Elias, Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories [ed. A. Busse (Berlin 1900)] 123.7–9.