Neoplatonic Interpretations of Aristotle on "Phantasia" Author(s): H. J. Blumenthal Source: The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Dec.

, 1977), pp. 242-257 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20127049 . Accessed: 16/04/2014 15:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OF NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS ARISTOTLEON PHANTASIA

H. J. BLUMENTHAL

X he remained

ancient

commentaries strange that studies kind even

on Aristotle1 of no-man's now holds

have land so many were

for

the most

in that

between

part Classical

and Medieval

of the productions

of later antiquity.
of Neoplatonism?for to occupy ?prefer Modern little Aristotelian account

On the whole
the themselves scholars, opinions

itwould be true to say that students

usually Neoplatonists with on the openly writings. Neoplatonic other hand, tend to take very In this ancient predecessors.

commentators

of the

of their

way they differ from the Medie vals, both Christian and Moslem: as is well known, Aquinas instigated the translation of many of these
commentaries by his fellow Averroes, before, century had made ample use of at Dominican, the greatest least the William of Moerbeke, while a of the Arabic earlier Greek commentators,

expositions.2

I The relative of Greek modern

neglect

commentary

by

Aristotelian scholarship could be justified, if only the neglectors had sufficient knowledge of the material they disdain. The curt dismissal
of ancient paradigm views case on the of misplaced active is perhaps by W. D. Ross for he evidently failed condemnation, intellect a to

1 are to page and on Aristotle to the Greek commentaries All references in Aristotelem edition line of the Berlin (Commentaria Academy on the De are to commentaries otherwise and unless Graeca), specified editions to Proclus are to page and line of the Teubner Anima. References on the Timaeus, Republic, and Euclid of the commentaries I, and to Cratylus in L. G. Westerink's the Creuzer pages for that on / Alcibiades (reproduced The Teubner North-Holland edition [Amsterdam: Co., 1954]). Publishing on Timaeus and the of commentaries in translations is the pagination given 1966-8 and 1970, respectively), (Paris: Vrin, Republic by A.-J. Festugi?re, I hy G. R. Morrow Euclid (Princeton: Princeton U.P., 1970), and/ Alcibiades

by W. 2O'Neill (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1965).

Cf. E. 1882), p. 53. Renan, Averro?s et

l'Averro?sme4

(Paris:

Calmann

Levy,

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
take those were, account who of what wish their authors these extent, were about.3 It would be open

243
to

to discount or lesser

commentators influenced

to a greater

to argue that they their by Neoplatonism,

and that this impairs their judgment on Aristotelian problems. But that would not be sufficient ground for total neglect: it merely
indicates ask the need it for careful is not utilization. possible whether perfectly One might go so far as to for a commentator who

happened
reasonably views

to be
unbiased

a Neoplatonist
commentary

to

offer

straightforward
Even if the answer

and
to

on Aristotle.

that question were

as he read

negative,
into Aristotle

is it not likely that such Neoplatonic

would at least be slanted towards

Aristotelianism? That neither of these possibilities is realised can, I think, be I have attempted to do demonstrated without too much difficulty.
this elsewhere, the sort and so shall not devote much space here to this

methodological
out

problem,
of arguments

important though it is.

and evidence applicable.4

It will suffice to set

On the first point, why should not a Neoplatonist be a reliable commentator, two things should be said. First, that by this time
everyone, Aristotle or were almost normally everyone, saying was so convinced if only that Plato and them the same, one understood

properly,

that

they would

have

felt no great

inhibitions

about

into Aristotle.5 under the Plato Furthermore, introducing they were were illusion that in propounding Neoplatonism they merely expound From it would be easy to infer, were it not these premises ing Plato.6 anyhow Aristotle's easier like a matter of faith, that their own ideas something were in accord. this in mind With fundamentally as Simplicius' to understand announcements such strange and it is that

he will try to expound the De Anima

and the notions question, of Iamblichus.7 we are now Given liminary

in accordance with
this answer to deal

the truth
pre with

to our first quickly

in a position

D. Ross De Anima (ed.) Aristotle. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 4p. 43. For a fuller discussion, and the relevant cf. my documentation, in the De Anima elements 21 Commentaries," "Neoplatonic Phronesis, (1976): 64-87 (hereafter elements"). "Neoplatonic 5 In Categor?as were but reservations Cf., e.g., Simplicius. 7.29-32, so Stephanus 519.37ff. made, Pseudo-Philoponus 6 Cf. Proclus In I Alcibiadem 227.21-22.
7 1.18-20.

3 W.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

244
the second. We may say that, while one might

H. J. BLUMENTHAL expect the commenta

tors' own views to be subordinated to the task in hand, the fact that they did not see themselves as doing anything other than Aristotle
himself distinctions As able meant we that should they were not predisposed these opinions at times to making commentators in the or places course where the require. of this

a consequence their

orientation

were of ex the

to express Aristotle, of Platonic

pounding pursuit

own Neoplatonic a useful expedient was most

dangerous. were produced, are have the subtle

philosophy where Alexandria, was just such

unpopular, of the The

unprofitable, commentaries story of Hypatia's Ammonius Thus, Aristotelian there

or even we have lynch seems there to was com was no

a place.8 which

ing at the beginning of the 5th Century

made arrangements with the city for the for authorities

iswell known.
at its end.9 into explained, we may

Less notorious

the scholarch

external

motivation

and mentary, inner sanction Aristotelian

Platonism putting we reasons have

it either. Thus, against texts of capable Platonizing of what

that any expect will receive interpretation

it. The rest of this paper will set out briefly two paradigm
and then look at some Simplicius and the pseudo-Philoponus,

cases,

that is Stephanus
in De Anima

of Alexandria,

do with the discussion of imagination

III.3.10

II

The most obvious difficulty

is the course,

in the De Anima

for a Neoplatonist
of was, problem view of the soul

of the soul. The particular view entelechy it with their own Platonist how to reconcile

as a higher entity separate from the body.

Their difficulty over this

8 Cf. A. D. E. Cameron, "The last days of the Academy at Athens," n.s. 15 (1969): 9-11. the Cambridge Proceedings of Philological Society 9 et la survivance Cf. H.-D. "Le chr?tien Jean Philopon de Saffrey, au VIe si?cle," Revue des ?tudes 77 l'?cole d' Alexandrie (1954): Grecques, on teaching who thinks the deal may have included an embargo 400-401, to Platonic Plato; for another view see Westerink, Anonymous Prolegomena North-Holland xi-xiii. (Amsterdam: 1962) pp. Co., Philosophy Publishing 10 as Book III of Philoponus' in appears commentary Stephanus' Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. F. Bossier and C. Steel, Recently en de van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius," in de Anima "Priscianus Lydus voor Filosofie, 34 (1972): 761-822, have tried to show that the Tijdschrift con is not by Simplicius; their case is not entirely commentary Simplicius elsewhere. vincing, but I shall leave it for discussion

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
is in a curious active intellect, end way parallel which ought of his the same series series, to Aristotle's for him not about difficulty to have been separate The own

245
the but

looked as if it might be.

the used higher virtually

He had to make adjustments,

of faculties. had to make

if he did, at

s, who Neoplatonist at the lower adjustments

end to fit their Platonic prejudices and enable them to keep the soul separate. A device for doing this had already been invented by
in Enn. who Plotinus, tion by understanding IV.7.85 entelechy solved to mean to his own satisfac the problem that the soul takes control

of a part of the physical world which ismatter prepared for it by being

another aspect?to pre-informed by Soul?in a to above remains attached series of faculties informing The Aristotle's Aristotle soul and "illuminates" used of the to make the constitute the level above.12 It body.11 of the merely

commentators definition was out

body to cope similar with expedients soul.13 To us there can be no doubt that that soul was in no way separate

from

it clear

from the body, and it would not be too far from the truth to say that he was analyzing the concept of life in the unitary individual. And
is the yet there second thoughts: entelechy of the notorious "it is not as hesitation where he says, clear," is a sailor of a to be having he appears "whether the soul is the

body is that this explanation possible one can say that the Neoplatonist

One (413a8-9). ship" In any case, is a relic of Platonism. commentators latched on to it as the

only piece of Platonism they could find in this part of the treatise, and exploited it to the full. One cannot, however, say that they did this with full awareness, for they had not been taught by Jaeger and others
to look out ment. for vestiges no had They misguided had, after of a Platonic doubt Platonist, that period Aristotle in Aristotle's was at a a develop if genuine, somewhat lower to courses

occasionally level. They culminating

operating long used him as an introduction in the metaphysic of Plato.14 all,

11 in IV.7.855 cf. my Plotinus' treatment of Aristotle On Plotinus' on 12-13 his and solution to the (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1971), pp. Psychology see now also D. O'Meara, soul body problem, Ibid., pp. 17?19 and 27-30; la pens?e de Plotin dans Structures (Leiden: E. J. Brill, hi?rarchiques 1975), pp. 101-102. 12 of terms used to illustrate is just one of a number "Illumination" on body, cf. Plotinus while soul's acting independence continuing 15. p. Psychology, 13 On this cf. "Neoplatonic elements," pp. 83-85. 14 13. Cf. e.g. Marinus, Life of Proclus

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

246 Somewhat
totle's basic

H. J. BLUMENTHAL

predictably,
and took

they found great difficulty with Aris

advantage extreme that the of the seeming reservation

position, who offers

for the possibility

Simplicius, pretation we have, a notion on

it afforded for escape from hylomorphism.

the most to show form tries

Thus

of Platonizing inter soul was the first entelechy in Aristotle. This he did by revised

of a body potentially
instrument, fastening definition the word

having
clearly and

life in so far as it used the body as an

not present in the

organikon,

at 412b5-6

to instruments." opposite reason

Finding to that which

organs", "having it in another taking acceptation, "pertaining Aristotle's hesitation for the embarassing makes it a puzzle for us, he wonders

why Aristotle says that it is unclear whether or not the soul is the body's entelechy like the sailor: it obviously is, because it is separable, So he and in that capacity it uses the body as a tool or instrument.
explains that use the soul is a separate only duly entity in so far in so far as as it does not The the body, and always are then two relationships inseparable hypostatized, it does.

and Aristotle's

problem

is resolved
different some scruples

by making
levels of soul about

both his statements

(96.3-15). this

true, but applicable

to have organikon

to
had as

taking

appears Philoponus and understands line,

indicating that the body has the possibility

of life, at least an honest

simply into the most their ifmisguidedly

to cope with the problem (224.12ff.).15 attempt were So far one could say the commentators

interpreting Aristotle
straight-forwardly If we Aristotle. Neoplatonization of III.5, we can us Alexander and Marinus

in the light of their own views,

views at

rather than
of of

these inserting look for a moment in the whole see that

reading case striking

a list of opinions (irrelevant

of the treatise, the treatment exposition went further still. Stephanus gives they on the meaning of those of the active intellect, purpose), to show Plutarch, Plotinus, of Alexander's

for our present It is easy (535.4-19). in the

that,

course excepted,
long-standing

it is in fact a list of different Neoplatonic

school about the

views on a
of the

controversy

nature

intellect.16 As iswell known, Plotinus had taken a position which he admitted to be unorthodox, that a part of the human soul does not
"descend", rejected but by most, remains but not above all, in the intelligible. This It is now view given was as later Neoplatonists.

15 See further "Neoplatonic 16 Cf. Ibid., pp. 73 ff.

elements,"

pp. 85-87.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
an opinion on the meaning of III.5, did not write Aristotle commentaries,17 the for regarding Plutarch's opinion, though coincides other though we know that

247
Plotinus evidence

strong prima facie some suspicion. reports Similarly was not divided, like Plotinus', that the intellect in the course of a commentary, it could have been given was which with that of his pupil Proclus, not, and so is too with

probably his own standpoint.

Plutarch's "demonic" view, or "angelic" as we his must that Marinus'

When we find that Stephanus

opinion that in terms the active of Proclus'

adopts
is

intellect thought,18

can be explained

and

that

Simplicius,

polemizing

against

Plotinus

and

giving

Iamblichus Plutarch's, who were

authority consider commentary

a position to takes similar (6.12-17), that even those authors the likelihood were at the same time introducing

writing

their personal

views,

a likelihood not diminished

one

by the fact that

are expressed views Simplicius' his forerunner at Athens and master Ammonius.19

in language similar to that of Proclus, of the teachers of his Alexandrian

That Aristotle

could represent Stephanus was a natural consequence

as comment views personal of the idea that the commentators

on

and Aristotle
the same commentator

were

dealing with
Given these tradition

same problem and giving basically

we attitudes, would regard may his that any expect own views on a

answers. in this

philosophical problem as a legitimate contribution to the solution of difficulties in understanding what Aristotle said about it. Con
we must to find expect versely, an expression of the interpreter's the need will not to cause tioned, have that own interpretations of Aristotle are Here men they philosophical position. we have which already it is not surprising that

offense, public its part.20 So played characteristic

attempt
system

to deal with entelechy

of layers without

and other problems

in terms of the

probably point a radical

of Neoplatonic able any disingenuousness, of Aristotle's

Platonization

and are, psychology to take as their starting of the soul. concept

17 His works are listed by Porphyry, 24-26. Life of Plotinus 18 Cf. In Timaeum III. 165.14-27. 19 as Ammonius' For Proclus teacher see Damascius, Life of Isidore fr. 127 (Zintzen); for Simplicius as Ammonius' In De pupil see Simplicius C?elo 271.19. 20 Cf. n. 9 above. Since the preservation of public respectability may sometimes have meant rather than Plato, it is ironic that teaching Aristotle on the eternity of the cosmos, wrote a treatise Against Aristotle Philoponus in 6 books (Simplicius, In Phys. 1118.1-4).

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

248 III
Let us now see how they approach the

H. J. BLUMENTHAL

interpretation

of a section

of the De Anima which does not immediately raise the fundamental problems which arose for Aristotle with the highest, and for the Neoplatonists with the lowest, level of the individual soul. Imagina tion, the subject of III.3, is not at first sight a topic liable to stimulate
the a of major distortions of points about number sort outlined above. Nevertheless which do give there scope are for imagination of phantasia,

Neoplatonization.
Neoplatonists' own

This

is true notwithstanding

the fact that the

of the detail

treatment

like so much

of their psychology, can be traced back to Aristotle himself. At the risk of some circularity it will be as well to identify at the start the points at which Neoplatonic psychology might be incon
sistent misread Aristotelian involved if one with Aristotle's views, and as imagination. so induce are a commentator to straightforward?insofar of discussions in Aristotelian is to determine they We straightforward? shall avoid becoming further than is necessary in the commentators

interpretation how far what

any one reads

or certainly, not Aristotelian.21 is probably, In Plotinus at the beginning. To start because special problem The lower lower souls. synamphoteron, all of which, the other it comes soul is concerned

phantasia at the boundary of the with the

presents higher

a and

operations of body and the lower phases of soul, compound involve the than phantasia while the itself, body,

of the

higher level of the soul does not require the body for its activities, even though it may deal with stimuli arising from the life of the
are mediated They synamphoteron. stimuli within the transmits external to it by phantasia, which itself. All also this synamphoteron

might not cause any outstanding difficulty were it not that Plotinus has two concerns which pull the faculty in opposite directions. First, he wishes to preserve the impassibility of the higher soul, and so
tries to detach it as far as possible he from the lower, and thus from a

faculty
needs

like imagination which

and activities. Secondly,

is closely connected with

is no less concerned

the body's
to preserve

21 in this chapter, of some of the difficulties For a recent treatment in Ancient Treatment of <f>avTacria," in Essays cf. D. A. Rees "Aristotle's ed. J. P. Anton and G. L. Kustas 1971) (Albany: SUN Y Press, Philosophy, from this chapter that no clear view emerges Rees concludes pp. 491-504. as a whole, Ibid., p. 500.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
memories phantasia, faculty, particular for and phantasia the discarnate soul.

249

is a function must

on Since memory depends the imaginative the phantastikon, to the higher be attached soul as well. This of

was less acute for some of the later problem perhaps survival who held differing views about into other Neoplatonists, as are we shall its effects felt. Plotinus the solved see, lives,22 but,

problem to his own satisfaction?we

it?by duplicating to both the higher seem to have been phantasia and lower and

might think that he failed to solve

a power soul.23 of imagination

attributing of the sections

Later Neoplatonists,
no less

if not influenced by quite the same objects,

conscious of difficulties in this area, but

responded in other ways.

Their difficulties are reflected primarily in a

status be and function in the found sometimes This of phantasia?a earlier part of Aris reintroduction which Plato of

of hesitation about the degree course hesitation which may of totle's another own discussion?and in this area also

in the

faculty

of soul.

is doxa,

opinion,

had designated as the faculty of cognition for sensible particulars, and which Aristotle had found it necessary to distinguish from phantasia, but which had played little part in the thought of Plotinus. Plotinus had at least not tried to solve his problem by sticking different
labels Since, ciated those on what however, with it, which were doxa and two parallel manifestations the status of the same we is given its relation of a faculty, problems imagination been faculty. find asso to

arose

for Plotinus

to phantasia, in dealing with seems to have comes

similar as

such.

That Aristotle
were in no way forgotten. The who

in the end made it quite clear that doxa and phantasia

to be identified conveniently

about problem has the advantage

their for

coexistence the present

out clearly in Proclus, an inde of purpose being

pendent witness
when

to what at least some later Neoplatonists

thought

not expounding Aristotle. We have already set out they were reasons a on the commentator Aristotle is likely why Neoplatonist own to have been out his It is to views.24 necessary hardly setting on Plato, as the proposition that a Neoplatonist argue commenting Proclus, may be taken as doing so too. Proclus' problem with

was

22 In Phaedonem, Cf. "Olympiodorus," 23 On Plotinus' treatment of phantasia pp. 80-99. chology, 24 See above, pp. 243-244.

124.13-20 (Norvin). see further Plotinus'

Psy

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

250 phantasia
to decide to put course,

H. J. BLUMENTHAL

may be seen in the way he apparently

either how scheme large of faculties, a role to attribute two

found it difficult

it in his entirely

or where to this power, are not, of which questions is that doxa and

independent. at different

What

happens

phantasia
different moreover,

split the territory which

ways of uncertainty

could be assigned
in Proclus' career.

to either
There

in

are, stages at given times. Thus while in the doxa aisthesis and early25 commentary, adjoins normally its products, and so excludes processes phantasia (e.g., In Timaeum as a also in be found the same work may 1.248.22-29), phantasia the same function 1.343.3-13). (Ibid., separate faculty which performs signs Timaeus In other 288.5-8, works and phantasia co-exist (e.g., In In Cratylum in the Republic whereas 65.3-15), seems to encroach if not on, supersede, doxa I Alcibiadem commentary doxa (e.g., as

phantasia

In Rempublicam
commentary, phantasia context.26 These must now which

II 277.18-19).
may, however, imagination some

This is also the case in the Euclid

be in a special in so far case, a specifically mathematical

represents then are

ask how chapter

of the Neoplatonists' over far they are carried on imagination. Do we

own problems, and we into the interpretation of find any evidence of the

Aristotle's

difficulties which exercised Plotinus and Proclus? The answer is that we do, though in view of the openings Aristotle provides, it is
difficult to be certain in all cases. A great doxa deal of space was devoted

by both Simplicius and Stephanus

phantasia doxa than is equivalent to aisthesis. which to either

to the question of whether

or aisthesis, could It must, or is some

or not
com

bination of the two, and they paid more attention

Now appears probl?matique emphasis in Proclus. this

in this regard to
well of reflect course, the be

admitted, that it could also be over-expansion of the difficulties which Aristotle himself raised on this subject. But even then the attention paid to doxa would indicate that the expansion was influenced by the
commentators' own philosophizing. In any case, it does emerge

clearly that with Aristotle's concern to distinguish phantasia from faculties with which it might be identified, there was linked a pre occupation with the boundary between the higher and lower souls
25 13. by the age of 28: Marinus Life of Proclus 26Composed of the De Anima For further details see my "Plutarch's exposition in De Jamblique ? Proclus. and the psychology of Proclus," Entretiens sur l'Antiquit? Classique 136-146. vol. 21 (Geneva: Fondation 1975): Hardt,

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
485. lOff. [translated (cf. Philoponus below] and487.28ff.), This activities rational and irrational 213.23ff.). (Simplic. Neoplatonic division between Politics,27 and not Aristotelian. rational and Even where Aristotle

251
or between is certainly does use a

the boundary

as he does in the Ethics and irrational, is assumed rather than taken as a problem

for resolution. To find that approach in the De Anima is a distortion. The difference between Aristotle and his interpreters lies in the point at which the problem was felt to arise. For Aristotle in the
De Anima possible there exception For was no question of the active that intellect. the soul was That a unit, with clearly, there was the if emerges clear that

evidence
(432a22ff.).

is needed, from his rejection of tripartition

the Neoplatonists it was equally and

later in Book III between

soul. them. A On

a fundamental

division

of the soul and its faculties

rational irrational among agreement The that but

the
that

logik? and alogos there would have

the psyche, been general

further

division, between
we here have seen, concerned

the rational soul and the intuitive intellect was, as

commentators with whom we are disregard because controversy in accordance with they had? a practice

controversial.28 could

arbitrarily standard each

as we since

might Iamblichus

treatise,

or Platonic

a single purpose in of discovering that the the down of purpose dialogue?laid

think, at least,

De Anima was to discuss the soul up to and including the level of the embodied rational soul. They therefore held that any part or function that might extend upwards into the intelligible world was excluded (cf. Simplicius 1.22-24, 172.4-8). Simplicius drags in this limitation
somewhat 427b27, gratuitously where he says intellect in explaining the reference to thinking must to mean that Aristotle be understood at the

thinking of the soul: by this Simplicius means

transcendent The sion

soul as opposed

to

(207.29-31). of the concern with the rational/irrational divi importance is that this division had to come somewhere around phantasia.

Hence
primarily

its obtrusion
an attempt

into the interpretation

to define phantasia

of what

in Aristotle
the concept

is
to

and elucidate

which the word referred. What for Aristotle is a question of setting out the attributes of phantasia, and showing how it differs from both
27 Cf. F. Solmsen, and scale of "Antecedents of Aristotle's psychology American 76 (1955): 149-150 Journal and the Beings," of Philology, on now Aristotle references Emotion and W. W. there, given Fortenbaugh, (London: Duckworth, 1975), pp. 26-37. 28 See above pp. 246-247 and n. 16.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

252
aisthesis and doxa, became of whether deciding question even lower soul, or perhaps terms De rational and irrational Anima are III.3, discussion for his

H. J. BLUMENTHAL a at least as much interpreters was or of the phantasia part higher In consequence, to both. the belonged

Stephanus'

do not appear at all in soul, which scattered its exposition. liberally throughout a com of the start of the chapter, ostensibly

ment on lines 427al7ff., begins like this: "Since sudden change is bad both in discourse and in reality, he does not move immediately
from between the rational the to the irrational cognitive powers soul, but first makes of the irrational and the a distinction rational soul,

and then distinguishes phantasia from the cognition of the rational In the middle he distinguishes phantasia from the special part.
senses, making nor his internal distinctions in the irrational soul, which 500.8 was

not the purpose of the discussion,

nor doxa, indicates a product of both." concern: doxa special

and says that it is neither aisthesis

(485.10-16). is the last At faculty Stephanus of the rational,

phantasia the first of the irrational soul, and in his summing up at the end of his discussion of four problems which he finds announced
in 428bl0ff. he writes, from the "and this is the end . . . of the fourth heading, to the

and the second section of the exposition,

the read rational this and irrational sections see soul." similar can

in which he distinguishes
If one were without having

(511.36-38).

of the commentaries receive

De Anima its contents. discussion the

again are the divergences of III.5, even though more our at limited.29 information disposal a serious All difference of approach this shows looking as they were for answers

itself, We

one would

a highly misleading the same factors which less

of impression in the appear striking and

between

these

commentators,

to Neoplatonic

questions in the text of Aristotle, and what one might expect if one were being presented with straightforward exposition of Aristotle. The point could perhaps best be proved by reference to Alexander's commentary, if we had it. An indication of what might have been found there, and let us be clear that it is only an indication, may be gathered from his independent treatise On The Soul, where we find no signs of the problem that was of such interest to the later and
Neoplatonic 29 For commentators. In over seven pages of discussion on

III.5 we have the Latin version of the genuine Philoponus runs from III.4-9?as well as the extra documentation commentary?which there provided by Stephanus.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS imagination (66.9-73.13)

soul. Neither of these

253

there is nothing about rational and irrational

terms appears till the summing-up if not free sentence

that follows,
irrational profound soul"

"We have now identified the critical faculties

(73.14). Similarly of Aristotle, seem irrational discursive to be soul. reason Themistius, is to some who, extent

of the

interpreter not and

a always from the

Neoplatonic

influences which

in his time already dominated Greek

concerned When and he sense about locates drawing lines on phantasia he gives perception,

does philosophy, rational between the border between

no indication that he is thinking of a boundary between

of the soul. He less separate phases to its neighbours. And reference is merely that,

two more or

locating phantasia by his given fundamentally a is what we

Peripatetic
which should he

treatment
clearly

of Aristotle's
to

definition of the soul (45.19ff.),

regard as unit,

continues

expect.

It is significant that Themistius' treatment of this chapter was apparently found unsatisfactory by Stephanus, as is suggested by a
where passage the operation perception, properly not the later commentator to be seem, criticizes simultaneous for Themistius from sensation Themistius with of phantasia it would unfairly, for taking that of sense

distinguishes

imagination

at one point quite as a possible source

of action by the fact that the images remain when sense perception
actually

is

act because like animals may taking place: images, seems are to Here still (93.2Iff.). present Stephanus perceptions, misremembered?the basic have misunderstood?or Peripatetic as a change or too gives which Themistius definition of phantasia, movement in act the agency of sensation place under not and one is (93.24-25).30 imply simultaneity, or his source, to surmise that Stephanus, has been misled tempted by a search a discrimination between for the greatest faculties, possible (kinesis) which takes This need

search which may have led him to a crude reading of a text which, if carefully read, might well have satisfied his prejudices. He may also
30 The opinion which Stephanus is criticizing is not found in so many in Themistius' words The explanation is probably paraphrase. inadequate if not deliberate misrepresentation, but the reference has been memorizing, used as part of the evidence for the thesis that Themistius full also wrote scale cf. C. Steel, "Des commentaires d'Aristote commentaries, par Revue de Louvain 71 (1973): 669-80; for Themistius?," Philosophique see my "Photius on Themistius another (Cod. 74): did Themistius view, on Aristotle?," write inHermes. commentaries forthcoming

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

254
have previous read without sufficient care Themistius' how object sensation at related the

H. J. BLUMENTHAL discussion and same to the on the

where page, with operate respect nevertheless different,

he explains to the same with

imagination time but are sense as the

phantasia

sense is to its object (92.6ff.): there Themistius actually points out that the temporal coincidence between the operation of the two faculties obscures the difference between them (ibid. 12-13). In any
has his complaint that Themistius pursues Stephanus by explaining taken his interpretation from Aristotle's remark that phantasia is present In fact, when (428b27-28). operates sense-perception case,

at

that point in his argument Aristotle

usually accuracy or exclusively of various happen images,

is not stressing
but in those

that the two

simultaneously, and saying that

is discussing the cases where

sensation of the special sensibles is still present the resulting image is not illusory. The point at issue had been brought out by Plutarch, whose definition of phantasia, possibly an attempt to refine that of Aristotle and Themistius, is actually quoted by Stephanus at another
point in his exposition sensation in act." (512.13-14). The addition The definition runs: "a movement

(kinesis) of the soul contiguously stimulated (prosekh?s diegeiromen?)

by of the two words stipulating

contiguity
Stephanus

protected
makes.

the definition

from

the

sort

of complaint

IV to the problems approach to show presented by this area of the soul, and we have seen enough a that the commentaries be manifestation of may Neoplatonic thought of Aristotle. Similar conclusions rather than simple exegesis may be the solution drawn from a more offered discussion, precise namely So have looked far we at an overall

to the problem produced by an apparent contradiction in Aristotle. Aristotle says at 418a 18ff. that phantasia is not always correct, but generally false, whereas later (428a27-28) he says that it is always
true in respect of the special the sensibles. The answer Stephanus

proposes
the forms,

is that phantasia
like a receptacle, for both assertions active

is double, the one kind merely

other representing Here with we what

receiving
it wants.

The first is always correct, but the second is liable to error, and this
accounts notion (509.16-23). associated seem to have soul, the as of a more phantasia the higher

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
opposed superior to a passive and inferior one tied to the lower the soul. This notion

255
of a

imagination the term

recalls nous

dichotomy

in Plotinus.

It may
somewhat

also be found in Proclus, where

strangely by

the passivity
passive

is indicated
intellect, earlier

path?tikos, The term

which

is sometimes applied to it. The usage may be exemplified by

on Euclid I, 52. 3-4.31 is also used

the commentary

in the discussion by Stephanus, at 506.24, and at 490.22 he explicitly identifies it with phantasia. Philoponus himself says, wrongly, that Aristotle called imagination passive intellect, explaining that it is
called intellect because are involved cognition (11.9-11). While most is inherent impressions himself uses in it, and passive because is there referring to Philoponus modern would

III.5, 430a24-25,

the only passage

in the De Anima where Aristotle

interpreters say

the phrase.

that the passive intellect of III.5 had nothing to do with phantasia, claimed that that was what it was, though they the Neoplatonists
should have regarded the idea of a passive remark in III.5 intellect as nonsense. In

addition to the text just mentioned we find that Simplicius explained

the meaning of Aristotle's that there is no memory

without
(248.2-8), passage,

passive
as did where

intellect
the genuine he explicitly

on the assumption
Philoponus the equates 1010b the soul, of what 1-2, in his two.32 says

of the
Similarly in so many

identification
on that Asclepius, words that to III.5, calls

commentary

on Metaphysics commenting on in his treatise Aristotle

clearly the

referring

phantasia
provides have had

nous path?tikos
a further in mind, namely

(inMetaphysica

280.16-17).
other to phantasia

Simplicius
may as nous

explanation that Aristotle

commentators

refers

because

it is involved
that

in judgment

(202.7-9).

Subsequently,

he

says disconcertingly h? (pathos phantastik? ment is that The tendency

the activity of imagination reason he gives The energeia).

is an affection for this state

involves division and impressions (206.11-14). imagination a of both Simplicius discussions and Stephanus again betray in terms of a hierarchy A few to explain of layers of soul.

pages after the discussion we have just cited Stephanus, who in the
31 see further W. Beierwaltes, On nous path?tikos in Proclus "Das Problem der Erkenntnis bei Proklos," inDe Jamblique ? Proclus (see n. 26): 157-159. 32 sur le De Anima Jean Philopon, Commentaire d'Aristote: Traduc tion de Guillaume de Moerbeke, ed. G. Verbeke Institut (Louvain/Paris: de Philosophie, Sup?rieur 1966), p. 61. 72-73.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

256
earlier discussion leaves the superiority of one kind

H. J. BLUMENTHAL of imagination to

be inferred from the active nature of one as opposed to the passivity of its neighbour, approvingly quotes Plutarch for the view that
phantasia the other (515.12ff.). in one aspect the summit is double, soul: it can be limit of the rational Simplicius, who does not actually of the taken senses, as one in the or two

split phantasia,

makes

it clear that he too is thinking in hierarchical terms when he says that phantasia adjoins aisthesis but stands above it (hyperekhousa) in
virtue of its active nature (214.20-23). terms and He

Simplicius
Stephanus

in this part of his commentary goes far further than

Neoplatonic concepts. says

in introducing

it is not surprising if one vehicle (okh?ma) is the basis of different The pneuma is involved in rational activity activities (213.37-38). It becomes fit (epit?deion) to receive the but also in sense perception.
impressions pertaining (oikei?s) priate manner fitness notion of error, doctrine. and in an appro to imagination and is stimulated of The notions forms (214.1-6). by sensible as is the characteristic,33 in the discussion Earlier, completely soul at variance

are, of course, appropriateness vehicle for the soul. of a pneumatic Simplicius he also gives an explanation when the

with Aristotle's
Error,

thought, but entirely

says, arises

in accordance with Neoplatonic

is led away from the

truth which embracing

comes though introversion, by turning to the body and the world of becoming (203.34-6). V

Finally, to Aristotle

we which

should

of the Neoplatonic look at one aspect approach on De in Anima the commentaries III.3, appears

Both Simplicius namely the need to harmonize Plato and Aristotle. and Stephanus are concerned because Plato in the Sophist says that
comes from phantasia seems him. to oppose doxa Only and aisthesis;34 seems, Aristotle, since who another denies this, of course, explana

33 age, cf. S. Sambursky, Though they do go back to the Hellenistic The Physical and Kegan Paul, World of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge 106-109. view that the of fitness became 1962), pp. concept Sambursky's a substitute is criticized by R. B. Todd, "Epitedeiotes for that of potentiality an analysis," Acta Classica 15 (1972): in philosophical literature: towards 25-35. 34 also refers to the Philebus, Sophist 264 A-B. Simplicius presumably to 39 B-C.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEOPLATONIC INTERPRETATIONS
tion could be tells found us to do had a need by those who that does not really mean that Plato so.

257
Thus

Stephanus terms ment,

phantasia argu from

comes from doxa and aisthesis,

are produced though

but has the habit of saying that middle

not an entirely convincing by the extremes, is able to adduce the famous passage Stephanus

Timaeus

35A about soul being produced from the indivisible and the divisible, and makes the point that the indivisible is not absorbed in
the mixture Simplicius, it is correct rather, (504.4-12). who also The stresses same the Timaeus passage position is adduced of phantasia, by intermediate

but concedes that there is a joint activity of doxa and aisthesis.

Thus

212.23). at reconciliation than does Stephanus his own attempt (cf. 504.26-30). a number of cases of the pervasive We have now observed fluence way in terms were that of Neoplatonic the soul's of stratification at the assumptions

to speak of combination, but not just any combination, one in the which he argues, (211.33 stay separate ingredients more seems convinced of rather Interestingly Simplicius in

composition and a careful question not from

in general, and in particular of the be and its activities may explained separation a Neoplatonic in terms of the If one layers. one of view point sort of realism

looking

could say that Aristotle's

was ceptual analysis allowed almost which so in a way large removed

difficulties arose from the fact that his con

conducted of the

to be translated into an entity, and any activity distinctions the need to make by making precise cruder and arbitrary ones instead.35 of Liverpool.

numbers

of arguably

University

35An for Neo of this paper was read to the Society earlier version at at of America the the of Studies Society Metaphysical Meetings platonic It was written March 1976. Northwestern during the tenure of a University, at the Center for Hellenic and a Research Studies Junior Fellowship Trust: I should like to express my thanks from the Leverhulme Fellowship to both.

This content downloaded from 89.179.117.36 on Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:39:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions