Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

846 28. philosophy and philosophical schools
master to explicit attacks on both Proclus (in 529) and Aristotle (after 529).
He ended his career as a Christian controversialist.)
Verrycken’s arguments that Ammonius’ metaphysics really differed from
those of Proclus are not entirely convincing. Proclus himself readily offers
simplified versions of his system when context and occasion demand it. If
the henads do disappear from Ammonius’ system, they are back again by
the time of Olympiodorus. 25 However, it does seem to be true that
Ammonius was more interested in Aristotle and less in Plato than Proclus.
We have already seen that Ammonius did not comment on the Timaeus or
the Parmenides. Proclus had written lengthy commentaries on both these
dialogues, and that in itself might have inhibited Ammonius from writing
about them; but it need not have inhibited him from teaching them, making
use of Proclus’ work. Conversely, Proclus appears less interested in
Aristotle, and more prepared to attack him, than Ammonius.
Interesting traces of Proclus’ treatment of Aristotle’s De interpretatione
can be found in his commentary on Plato’s Cratylus, while in a number of
other places Proclus discusses Aristotle’s view of the divine Intellect. In
both cases there are revealing parallels with Ammonius. The more hostile
and defensive attitude to Aristotle in the Cratylus commentary could be due
precisely to the fact that there Proclus is commenting on Plato; the more
sympathetic tone of Ammonius might reflect a more sympathetic tone
adopted by Proclus when Aristotle himself was under discussion.
However, the same difference in tone also appears on a more contentious
subject, the treatment of Aristotle’s theology. Proclus criticizes Aristotle
for failing to draw the conclusion that the divine Intellect must be not only
the ultimate object of desire but also the efficient cause which produces the
world. In Ammonius, as reported by Asclepius, this criticism becomes a
favourable interpretation of Aristotle: according to Ammonius, Aristotle
did in fact regard the divine Intellect as an efficient cause. 26
Support for the claim that these differences of tone are not just produced
by the differences of context comes from the work of Proclus’ teacher,
Syrianus. Syrianus’ commentary on Aristotle, Metaphysics Β, Γ, Μ and Ν survives.
Μ and Ν in particular make difficult reading for a Platonist since they
attack the Platonist theory of ideal numbers. Syrianus is quite prepared to go
on the attack and to accuse Aristotle of talking nonsense. It is true that in
the preface to his commentary on Μ Syrianus speaks with respect and admiration
of Aristotle’s work in logic, ethics and physics and describes himself
as both a fighter on behalf of Platonism and an impartial arbitrator between
Aristotle and the disciples of Pythagoras (who, for Syrianus, include Plato).
In the subsequent commentary, however, the fighter is more in evidence than
the arbitrator. It is Ammonius, in his commentary on the De interpretatione,
25 Olympiodorus, In Alcibiadem 44.9, 51.16. 26 Sheppard (1987). Steel (1987).
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008