Porphyry’s Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics: A Greek Text and Annotated Translation, edited and translated by Barker, A.

Abstract

pertinent writings of particular Neoplatonists further to refine and argue for its thesis. In both parts, moreover, H. pays careful attention to previous scholarship pertinent to his topic and thesis. Conspicuously absent from his narrative, though, is analysis or even indication of where Porphyry’s mentor Plotinus fits into the book’s topic – for example, as may be gleaned from his Sixth Ennead and its treatises on being and number. This quibble aside, H.’s narrative and analyses highlight the diversity and plurality among the particular Neoplatonists not only with respect to how much, or to what degree, they discerned doctrinal harmony in Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies but also in their methodologies for discerning this. Thus, for example, we find Porphyry carefully critiquing (and criticising) Aristotelian doctrines regarding the soul to discern where Aristotle was correct (and so potentially in agreement with Plato) regarding the soul (pp. 56–8) whereas we find Stephanus of Alexandria purposively reading Aristotle in a manner which would agree with Platonic doctrine, proclaiming that ‘if he [Aristotle] spoke of an unwritten tablet . . . it is because it contains letters that are minuscule and invisible’ (p. 70). Another important corollary toH.’s harmonisation thesis is the fact that, howevermuch a particular Neoplatonist may discern Plato and Aristotle to ‘agree’, also a ‘recurrent feature in late Neoplatonism is the affirmation of the superiority of Plato over Aristotle in everything having to do with questions of metaphysics and theology’ (p. 52). Thus, for example, in reading Syranius we find ‘the distinction between an Aristotle who is more a philosopher of nature, and a Plato who is more of a theologian’ (p. 124). Or, in more general terms, among the Neoplatonists ‘the philosophy of Plato is considered to be higher, more theological, and more inspired as compared to that of Aristotle’ (p. 134) so that even ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics can only be an intermediary stage between the study of principles and natural causes and the true theology developed byPlato’ (p. 134). Even here, though, there is no singlemonolithicNeoplatonist viewpoint, as Simplicius, for example, maintained that in most cases of seeming differences between Plato and Aristotle ‘the difference between the philosophers is not over a reality, but over a name’ (p. 167); and David (Elias) counsels the exegete not to approach the philosophers’ textsas either aPeripatetic or aPlatonist but to approach themasequals andnot take sides (p. 141). The book’s concluding bibliography of previous scholarship and textual resources is also (again aside from Plotinus) quite thorough and useful.