[2001] de Haas, F. - Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's Cat

8102019 [2001] de Haas F - Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotles Cat

httpslidepdfcomreaderfull2001-de-haas-f-did-plotinus-and-porphyry-disagree-on-aristotles 135

Did Plotinus and Porphyry disagree on AristotleOtildes Categories

FRANS AJ DE HAAS

ABSTRACTIn this paper I propose a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI1-3 [41-43]On the gen-era of being which regards this treatise as a coherent whole in which AristotleOtildesCategories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution toPlotinusOtilde Platonic ontology In addition I claim that PorphyryOtildes Isagoge andcommentaries on theCategories start by adopting PlotinusOtilde point of view includ-ing his notion of genus and proceed by explaining its consequences for a moredetailed reading of theCategories After PlotinusOtilde integration of theCategoriesinto the Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploitingthe Peripatetic tradition both as a means to support the Platonic interpretation of the Categories and as a source for solutions to traditional questions His alle-giance to a division of being into ten and his emphasis on semantics rather thanontology can be explained from this orientation In the light of our investigationthe alleged disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on theCategorieschanges its appearance completely There are differences but these can bebest explained as conrmation and extension of PlotinusOtilde perspective on theCategories and its role in Platonism

1 Introduction

Traditionally the interpretation of AristotleOtildesCategories has been con-sidered as the principal area of dissent between Plotinus and PorphyrySince Antiquity commentators have seen a clear rift between PlotinusOtildecritical discussion of AristotleOtildesCategories in the context of his treatiseOn the genera of being ( Enn VI1-3 [42-44]) and PorphyryOtildes successfulefforts to ensure the work a place in the Neoplatonic curriculum by meansof his Isagoge and his two commentaries on theCategories 1 Plotinus weare told regarded AristotleOtildes treatise as a work concerning the genera of

copy Koninklijke Brill NV Leiden 2001 Phronesis XLVI4

1 This point of view is defended most elaborately in the publications of Evangeliouand Chiaradonna (with modications) and accepted by eg AC Lloyd (1955-6)58 HD Saff rey (1992) 43-33 LP Gerson (1994) 84-96 M Isnardi Parente (1994)

passim A De Libera and A-P Segonds (1998) ix-xii For Antiquity see esp Simplin Cat 25-29



PLOTINUS AND PORPHYRY 493

being As such he rejected it because the categories were inapplicable tothe intelligible realm of real being (VI11) and apart from numerous other inconsistencies did not qualify as genera (VI12-24) However in his ownattempt to deal with sensible being he subjected each of the categories to

severe criticism so as to end up with the remnants of only four of Aris-totleOtildes categories (substance quality quantity and relation) while addingmotion as a fth (VI3) Thus he achieved at least numerical agreement

with PlatoOtildesve highest genera (being or substance otherness identityrest and motion) which he introduced as keys to the ontological structureof the intelligible realm (VI2)2

Unlike Plotinus Porphyry is said to have accepted theCategories as a work concerned with the genera of signicant terms in so far as they sig-nify beings (thus excluding propositions particles etc) He believed that Aristotle classied familiar terms taken from everyday speech (thusexcluding second-level terms like OcircgenusOtilde and OcircspeciesOtilde) Everyday sperefers to what is most familiar to us and therefore Porphyry considers theCategories to be primarily concerned with composite substances If so it is only natural that the scope of theCategories should be conned to thesensible realm Porphyry also disagreed with Plotinus in allowing all ten

categories to stand as referring to ten kinds of sensible being All in allthis interpretation turns the work into a suitable starting point for begin-ners in philosophy

The conviction that a serious disagreement concerning theCategoriesexisted between Plotinus and Porphyry has given rise to different inter-pretations of their personal relationship Perhaps PlotinusOtilde initial rejectionof theCategories when writing VI1 was already tempered under the inuenceof Porphyry so that the work could serve as a starting point for PlotinusOtildeown attempt at dealing with the sensible realm in VI33 Perhaps Porphyrydid not leave Plotinus because he was illndash as he himself wrote inVita

Plotini 11 ndash but because of their disagreement on theCategories After alldid he not devote much of his time in Sicily to commenting on theCategoriesand other works of Aristotle thus testifying to an Aristotelian turn in hisphilosophical career4

2 The diff erences between PlatoOtildesmiexclgista giexclnhand PlotinusOtilde genera will have toremain unexplored here See eg JP Anton (1976) 90-93 O Hoppe (1965) M IsnardiParente (1994) C Horn (1995) 106-148

3 See C Evangeliou (1988) 167 with n 134 See HD Saff rey (1992) esp 43-44 53 following Evangeliou and followed by

A De Libera and A-P Segonds (1998) vii-xii De LiberaOtildes interpretation of the Isagoge rests on this assumption



494 FRANS AJ DE HAAS

However in recent years this story of the philosophical and personalrelationship between our two Neoplatonists has begun to crumble First Ishall draw a number of conclusions from the achievements of recent schol-arship (section 2) then I shall argue for the opposite of the traditional

view PorphyryOtildes interpretation of theCategories is complementary toPlotinusOtilde treatment of this work both in form (section 3) and in its inter-pretation of theCategories (section 4) Porphyrycontinues the process of integrating AristotleOtildes work into Platonism from the point where Plotinusleft it Since I agree with recent presentations of PorphyryOtildes position inthis paper my focus will be on the presentation of a novel reading of Plotinus Enn VI1-3 [42-44] that brings out more clearly the character of his interpretation of theCategories as distinct from (though closely relatedto) his own project in Enn VI1-3 (section 411-4) A brief comparison

with relevant characteristics of PorphyryOtildes interpretation of theCategories(section 421-4) will then I hope be suf cient to reach the desired con-clusions (section 5)

Of course the interpretation of theCategories itself is still a matter of debate today For clarityOtildes sake I shall here refrain from taking a positionon that debate All I would like to say in parentheses is that neither

Plotinus nor Porphyry defended an interpretation of Aristotle we shouldconsider at all convincing In this sense then neither of them OcircacceptedOtildeAristotleOtildesCategories for what (we believe) it is without essential adjust-ments However what is relevant for the historical question of (dis)con-tinuity between the interpretations of Plotinus and Porphyry is the(dis)continuity betweentheir views of AristotleOtildesCategories More oftenthan not this (dis)continuity has been discussed in terms of their accep-tance or rejection of AristotleOtildesCategories as such ndash thus importing theinterpretation of theCategories into the discussion as a confusing thirdfactor5

Moreover we should realize that the relation between Plotinus andPorphyry is not equivalent to the relation between Plotinus and all philoso-phers after Plotinus as Simplicius will have us believe6 Even thoughPorphyry may have determined the medieval and later understanding of the Categories to a large extent there was much less continuity between

Porphyry and later Greek commentaries on theCategories Although later

5 For instance I believe that for this reason the presentation and criticism ofC Horn (1995) in R Chiaradonna (1999) 35n36 36-7n43 is misdirected

6 Cf Simplin Cat 25-29 on Porphyry as Ocirche who is responsible for all our goodOtildeand claiming the dependence of Iamblichus and Dexippus on Porphyry at 310-14Simplicius adds himself to this tradition




Neoplatonists followed Porphyry in allowing theCategories as part of thecurriculum and in accepting all ten categories they disagreed with bothhim and Plotinus in their attempts to apply the ten categories toboth thesensible and intelligible realms The most elaborate effort to achieve this

goal was made by Iamblichus whose Ocircintellective contemplationOtilde ( noerŒyevrUcirca) is echoed in the commentaries by Dexippus and Simplicius7

Against this background it is all the more striking that Simplicius inhis learned and brilliant commentary on theCategories set himself to theproject of harmonizing all previous commentators on the interpretation of the Categories from Porphyry onwards However Simplicius should not shape our view of the history of philosophy comparisons between the

works of ancient commentators on theCategories show that there is muchdisagreement both implicit and explicit and concerning important issuesTo mention just one example not only did the commentators hold differ-ent views about the purpose (skopntildew) of the Categories as a whole theyalso disagreed about which of their predecessors held which view8 Thusthere is ample room for doubt concerning SimpliciusOtilde harmonizing pre-sentation of ancient scholarship concerning theCategories And sinceit is Simplicius who is hailed by most defenders of the traditional view

when they argue for a fundamental disagreement between Plotinus andPorphyry there is every reason to reassess the relation between their inter-pretations of AristotleOtildesCategories

2 Recent scholarship

Recent scholarship has shown that in at least one important respect there was far more continuity between Plotinus and Porphyry in their handlingof the Categories than many scholars had assumed We have been taught that most aporiai concerning theCategories that we nd in Plotinus andPorphyryndash as well as their various solutionsndash are part and parcel of a crit-ical tradition that probably started with Lucius and Nicostratus9 Thanksto PlotinusOtilde class-room practice of reading earlier commentators (egNumenius Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias)10 both Plotinus and

7 Cf JM Dillon (1997)8 A valuable survey of the ancient discussion can be found in P Hoff mann (1987)9 See eg SK Strange (1987) C Evangeliou (1988) 17-33 J Mansfeld (1992)

57-133 R Thiel (1997) 153-184 I am grateful to Dr Rainer Thiel for putting his as yet unpublished Habilitationsschrift at my disposal A summary of ThielOtildes argumencan be found in his introduction to Simplicius (1999) viii-xiv

10 Cf PorphVita Plotini 14 with M-O Goulet-Caz (1992)




Porphyry were equally familiar with this traditional set of questions anda range of putative solutions to them If so the presence of a discussionof aporiai as such (with or without hints at some or all traditional answers)can have only limited value in determining how an author interpreted the

Categories himself and whether he accepted or rejected its doctrine what-ever his interpretation Even a full comparison of all remainingCategoriescommentaries will show only which pieces of doctrinewe cannot attributeto the earlier tradition for lack of evidence Hence discussion and use of traditional aporiai are to be distinguished sharply from criticism of AristotleOtildeCategories Porphyry is reported to have solvedall previous aporiai in his(lost) commentary on theCategories Ad Gedalium 11 Even this does not prove his wholesale acceptance of theCategories but merely that he madea greater effort than anyone else to deal with the tradition The interest-ing question is why he believed this tremendous effort worth his while

On the other hand the presence of a critical tradition should not blindus to the possibility that Plotinus and Porphyry eachexploit the familiar questions and answers to support their own view of theCategories Thispossibility is even more pressing when we see thatall later ancient com-mentators on theCategories discuss such aporiai and the answers to them

and that they all differ from both Plotinus and Porphyry in their interpre-tation of theCategories as a whole We may surmise that a discussion of aporiai can only be taken as an indirect indication of an interpretation of the Categories

This conclusion is supported by HornOtildes12 successful effort to showndash inconscious opposition to previous scholarshipndash that PlotinusOtilde treatment of the category of substance throughout Enn VI1-3 is purposive and coher-ent and should therefore be taken to represent his own considered opin-ion throughout

Here a conclusion is to be drawn which has an application beyond thecategory of substance on which recent scholarship has focused the con-venient distinction between the aporetic treatment of Aristotle and theStoics in VI1 on the one hand and the construction of PlotinusOtilde own

11 So Simplin Cat 26-812 C Horn (1995) esp p 103 Hornoc p 57f clearly saw the need to reassess

the relation between Plotinus and the later tradition on the basis of his reading of PlotinusOtilde treatise I am not convinced by the criticism of HornOtildes interpretation bR Chiaradonna (1999) For my own disagreements with Horn see below See further R Thiel (1997) 153-166 184-186 Both take their cue from a seminal paper by SKStrange (1987) although their arguments diff er as they diff er from mine



ontology in VI2-3 on the other is ill-founded13 Not only does Plotinusprepare the ground for his own view of both intelligible and sensible sub-stance as we shall see in more detail below but his treatment of Relation(VI17-9) and of Action and Passion in their relation to Motion (VI115-

22) already contain much of his own point of view14

In the case of Actionand Passion Plotinus clearly builds upon the results of the earlier part of the treatise In VI122 important questions raised in the previous chaptersalready receive a clear answer15 In VI321-26 these results are the start-ing point of the discussion16 In the case of Relation Plotinus does not even see the need to add anything to the results he reached in VI1 asthe terse remarks at VI328 4-12 show17 If Enn VI1-3 is a coherent

whole in this way it is a mistake to suggest that Plotinus Ogravecame a long way between VI1 and VI3Oacute even apart from any speculation that it wasPorphyry who inuenced Plotinus to take that direction18

3 Complementarity in form

Too often scholars have treated PlotinusOtilde treatiseOn the genera of being(VI1-3) on a par with PorphyryOtildes Isagoge and commentaries on the

Categories However I believe we can begin to understand the (dis)con-tinuities between PlotinusOtilde and PorphyryOtildes views of theCategories only when the fundamental differences between the genres of their works are


13 This view is clearly formulated in C Evangeliou (1982) C Evangeliou (1988)93-95 and M Isnardi Parente (1994) 1-2 VI1 is pars destruens and Ocircuna vivacepolemica contro la dottrina aristotelica delle categorieOtilde VI2 is pars construens whereas VI3 contains surprising concessions to Aristotle and a forceful attempt toadjust Aristotle to the requirements of Platonismndash an attempt which she believes isdoomed to failure Cf R Chiaradonna (1996b) 27-29

14 Perhaps this explains why Plotinus qualies his treatment of Relation as a digres-sion at VI18 1

15 Eg motion exists in both action and passion passive aff ection can be diff eren-tiated from action by the fact that it has in itself a qualitative motion of some kind whereas action as such remains unaff ected (VI122 1-10) There is a risk that at least in some cases motion resolves into a relation between the active and the passive (10-19) However not all activities (currenniexclrgeiai) are instances of making (poieYacuten) since thelatter is often unintended and accidental to the action as such (27-34)

16 Eg action and passion are species of motion not vice versa (VI321 6-9)motion is not relational because it can be examined as such before it belongs to some-thing in this respect it resembles quality quantity and substance (9-23)

17 These results were already used earlier in VI3 eg at VI321 9-2318 See above p 493




respected Many differences between the two can be explained by point-ing to the different aims and structure of their works

It is obvious that Plotinus aims at exploring a thoroughly Platonic ontol-ogy of the realms of being and becoming It is equally obvious that

Plotinus does not wish to retain all of AristotleOtildes categories and has a lotto say about the structure of being involved in each and all of the cate-gories he does retain for the realm of becoming However we shall seethat he is trying to convince us that Aristotle did not design theCategoriesas an ontological treatise at all In addition as I intend to show belowhis examination is designed to reveal that there are Platonic grounds for holding that theCategories has a role to play in a Platonic ontologicalframework

It will be equally obvious that PlotinusOtilde treatise is not meant to be acommentary on theCategories A clear indication is that Plotinus incor-porated much of AristotleOtildes Metaphysics into his treatise19 A signi cant part of PlotinusOtilde searching inquiry into the categories consists in anexplicit confrontation of theCategories with the Metaphysics esp BookVII He may be following the example of the critical tradition that alsodisplays this approach in order to generate contradictions in AristotleOtildes

thought20

However we shall see that Plotinus turns to the Metaphysics inorder to test candidate interpretations of theCategories not to show itsincoherence On the contrary he will retain an interpretation he believesis compatible with both worksndash an interpretation which he then integratesinto his own Platonic metaphysics If my interpretation of Plotinus holds

water he is not at all working to destroy AristotleOtildes argument rather heis seeking to get to what he believes to be the heart of it even if heexploits a convenient selection of traditional questions to pursue his goalBut since PlotinusOtilde treatise is not simply a commentary on theCategories

we shall have to make some effort to prove this pointPorphyry on the other hand wrote works which are intended to pre-

pare for and to present an interpretation of AristotleOtildes work PorphyryOtilde Isagoge is styled as an introduction to among other things theCategories

19 PorphyryVita Plotini 14 4-7 rightly tells us that the incorporation of AristotleOtildes Metaphysics was a characteristic of PlotinusOtilde philosophy as a whole Cf M DeGandillac (1979)

20 Eg the charge that matter form and composite as distinguished in the Metaphysics cannot be reconciled with the notion of substance as employed in theCategories for solutions compare Porphin Cat 8813-22 Simplin Cat 7413-26Philopin Cat 4923-501




In his surviving question-and-answer commentary on theCategories 21

Porphyry aims at beginners in philosophy and avoids ontology as muchas possible by starting his philosophical analysis from uninformed every-day speech22 His large commentary on theCategories Ad Gedalium is not

extant though numerous fragments and testimonia are preserved in thesurviving ancient commentaries on theCategories 23 Here we have theopposite situation we have to glean bits and pieces of PorphyryOtildes under-lying metaphysical doctrine from an introduction and commentaries Perhapsthe situation is worse since Porphyry chose to regard theCategories as a

work for beginners who were not yet ready for real metaphysics Hencehe consciously suppressed references to metaphysical issues24 Also hisrepeated statement that the ten categories are the highest generandash whereasfor Plotinus they are not as we shall seendash is a consequence of his per-spective on theCategories 25

As to the interpretation of theCategories it will be clear that Porphyry will have to face many problems that Plotinus did not discuss or not inthe same detail For instance even in his short question-and-answer com-mentary Porphyry puts his own interpretations into relief by pointing toprevious commentators of Peripatetic and Stoic persuasion26 Some of

them may have inuenced Plotinus but we have to turn to a commentarysuch as PorphyryOtildes or SimpliciusOtilde to learn more about these previous discussions In dealing with previous discussions Porphyry sometimes optsfor solutions that seem in disagreement with PlotinusOtilde position Even ifthis can be veried with certainty it is not my intention to exclude suchdisagreements between Porphyry and Plotinus even when they touch onimportant issues of ontology Nevertheless I believe it is possible to main-tain that there is no disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry intheir general approach to theCategories and in their integration of theCategories as such into Platonism as a whole Porphyry started where

21 Translated by SK Strange (1987)22 Porphin Cat 5921-2 13428-9 14111-1223 Michael Chase is preparing an edition of the remaining fragments from Ad Geda-

lium with translation and commentary a number of fragments are already listed bySmith in his edition of PorphyryOtildes fragments (1993) 46F-74F

24 Famous is his praeteritio of the issue of the mode of existence of universals in Isag 19-14

25 See further below pp 520-52226 Clear examples arein Cat 5910-34 on theskopntildewof the Categories mention-

ing Athenodorus Cornutus Boethus and Herminus 8620-41 on the number of cate-gories mentioning Athenodorus and Cornutus again For more details see SimplinCat 94-1327 and 6224-6631 respectively




Plotinus left off even if in the end he found himself in places wherePlotinus never went

To summarize Porphyry expounds in the proper format of a commen-tary and (hence) in considerably more detail what had to remain in the

background in the type of treatise Plotinus wrote In Plotinus VI1-3 meta-physics is on the surface with a particular interpretation of theCategoriesshining through in Porphyry the same kind of interpretation of theCategoriesis on the surface with the same metaphysics shining through After a moredetailed comparison of doctrine we shall be able to see that Porphyry mayhave embarked on his commentariesbecause Plotinus had convinced himthat AristotleOtildes work had an important role to play in Platonism (whengiven a certain interpretation)

At this point one might object and rightly so that complementarity inform does not exclude disagreement in interpretation Therefore theremainder of this paper is devoted to showing that PorphyryOtildes work iscomplementary to that of Plotinus in the sense that it continues the sameproject ndash the integration of theCategories into Platonismndash in the same

way ndash by regarding the categories themselves as a special kind of names

4 Complementarity in interpretation

A full proof of the complementarity of the interpretations of AristotleOtildesCategories by Plotinus and Porphyry could well run to book lengthWithin the limits of this paper I have to conne myself to four main issuesthat constitute the framework for the more detailed interpretations in bothauthors I submit that complementarity on these four issues is suf cient toshow that there is no fundamental disagreement between Plotinus andPorphyry concerning the interpretation of theCategories

The rst issue is the purpose (skopntildew) of theCategories This question isclosely related to the question of what might have been the original titlefor the work The traditional view suggests that Plotinus considered theCategories to be concerned with the genera of being probably because hebrings the work up for discussion in a treatise to which Porphyry gavethat name By consequence Plotinus is said to have preferred the titleOn

the genera of being or On the ten genera the latter of which is mentionedand even conditionally accepted by Porphyry though without mentioningPlotinus27 However we shall see that Plotinus did not take for granted

27 Porph in Cat 5931ff The attribution of this title to Plotinus does not seem torest on ancient testimony pace SK Strange (1987) 964 (repeated in his introductionto Porphyry (1992) 36 n 32) and A De Libera and A-P Segonds (1998) xv n 23




that theCategories was concerned with genera of being and even arguesfor an interpretation of the categories askat goriai (the meaning of thisterm will be our second issue) So if we wish to speculate on the titlePlotinus preferred it may well have beenCategories which happens

to be the title chosen by Porphyry as well Porphyry considered theCategories to be concerned with signicant terms in so far as they areused to signify beings A closer look at the meaning ofkat goria will benecessary to understand why this interpretation is in agreement with hischoice for the titleCategories

This is our second issue the precise meaning ofkat goria and its cog-nates in Plotinus and Porphyry There will be complementarity betweenthe two if they employ the term in the same sense when dealing withAristotleOtildesCategories as I will show they do The required sense ofkat -goria is that of a name applied to a set of beings which do not exhibit the structure of members of a genus so that OcircsubstanceOtilde OcircqualityOtilde etc not names of genera like eg OcircanimalOtilde The beings under a singlekat -goria only answer to the criteria Aristotle used in theCategories to dis-tinguish the categories one from the other eg Ocircbeing in a subjectOtildeOcircaccepting more-and-lessOtilde and Ocircallowing contraries while remainin

numerically one and the sameOtilde In this way the application of the namesof the categories is based on reality without requiring the familiar struc-ture of genera and species For Plotinus as we shall see this approach tosensible being which he ascribes to Aristotle is a felicitous attempt tocomply with PlatoOtildes prescriptions in the Philebus and theTimaeus becauseit does justice to the feeble ontological status of the sensible object asPlotinus conceived it

Here we must turn to the more complex issue of the notion of OcircgenusOtildeIt is common knowledge that in adherence to PlatoOtildesSophist Plotinusemployed a notion of genus as a constitutive principle of the intelligiblerealm (VI2) If this notion is not applicable to the pseudo-being of thesensible realm why do both Plotinus and Porphyry employ the termOcircgenusOtilde in this context all the same A brief excursus into Plotinian metaphysics will be necessary to elucidate this point and to shed further light on PlotinusOtilde attitude to theCategories We shall see that Porphyry no

longer needed to have any qualms about allowing the term OcircgenusOtilde as parand parcel of the framework of theCategories precisely because of thepioneering work of Plotinus What is more Porphyry realised he had toput the revised notion of genus into place already in his introduction tothe Categories the Isagoge

Finally in VI38-9 Plotinus is remarkably positive about a series of divisions of sensible being which happen to agree entirely with divisions




Aristotle used in his physical works It is dif cult to see how this is pos-sible if he had rejected AristotleOtildesCategories wholesale On the contrarythese divisions are acceptable to Plotinus for the same reason that the cat-egories are (partly) acceptable to him from his newly gained perspective

they do justice to the ontological status of sensible being If so PorphyryOtildestree as well as PorphyryOtildes interest in AristotleOtildes physical works at oncbecome understandable as a continuation of PlotinusOtilde project of integrat-ing AristotleOtildes philosophy into Platonism

Before we proceed to more detailed interpretations of Plotinus andPorphyry it may be convenient to introduce some central elements of theancient discussion on theCategories A rst element is the issue of thenumber of categories is the number of ten correct or is it too low28 or too high29 A second element is the relation between the distinctionAristotle makes inCat 1 between synonymy and homonymy and thenotion of a genus InCat 1 1a1-6 Aristotle stipulates that beings (not terms) are homonymous if they share the same name although the account that corresponds to that name is different Eg an animal and a pictureare both calledztradeion although for an animal to be aztradeion(ie a livingbeing) is quite different from what it is for a picture to be aztradeion(ie an

image not necessarily of a living being) In addition Aristotle stipulates(1a6-12) that beings are synonymous if they share not only the same namebut also the account corresponding to that name Eg a human being andan ox are both calledztradeion in the same sense of the word for both of them to be aztradeion is to be a living being InCat 5 3a33-b9 (quotedbelow) Aristotle argues that beings named after differentiae and secondarysubstances (ie genera and species of individual substances) are namedsynonymously If so it is a characteristic of a genus that the different things to which its name is applied are strictly synonymous they have toshare not only the name of the genus but also the denition correspond-ing to that name ie the denition of that genus

This explains the route of investigation taken by Plotinus in order todecide whether the categories are genera or not we have to see whether the beings to which Aristotle applies the names of each of the categories

28 Eg because no room is made for classes of expressions as such as Athenodorusand Cornutus are reported to have argued cf Porphin Cat 5910ff

29 Eg because the categories can be reduced ultimately to the Platonic dichotomyof self-subsistent (kayƒ aecirctntilde) versus dependent on something else (progravew llo) Thisdiscussion is evoked by Plotinus in VI33-4 cf C Evangeliou (1987)




(eg OcircsubstanceOtilde OcircqualityOtilde OcircquantityOtilde etc) share the same denition Egif matter form and the composite of form and matter are all called Ocircsub-stanceOtilde by Aristotle and it is agreed that for matter to be substance isquite different from what it is for the composite of matter and form to be

substance the name OcircsubstanceOtilde is not used synonymously Otherwisethese beings called OcircsubstanceOtilde are not entitled to this name because thefall under agenus called OcircsubstanceOtildendash even though there may be other good reasons for calling them OcircsubstanceOtilde as we shall see

A particular case of such lack of synonymy occurs when beings that share the same name constitute a hierarchical series in which one is prior to the other In several places Aristotle stipulates in agreement with Academicpractice that members of such a series have nothing in common corre-sponding to their being called by the same name30 Eg although all inte-gers are rightly called OcircnumberOtilde it cannot be inferred that there is agenusnumber in whose characteristics they all share in the same way By con-sequence to show that a category is not agenus it is suf cient to showthat Aristotle calls several members of a series by the name of a partic-ular category Taking up the example of matter form and compositeagain we may recall that in Metaph VII3 form is said to be prior to both

matter and the composite of form and matter If all three are called Ocircsub-stanceOtilde we may surmise that whatever substance is it is not a genusWith this background knowledge in place we are in a more convenient

position to understand the train of thought in Enn VI1-3 I wish toemphasize that the following interpretation of Plotinus is independent frommy additional claim that PorphyryOtildes interpretation of theCategories maybe considered compatible with Plotinus thus interpreted

41 The Categoriesin Enn VI1 scope and meaning of AristotleOtildes division

Let us now have a closer look at a number of Plotinian passages whichbear out PlotinusOtilde view of theCategories 31 Plotinus introduces his treat-ment of AristotleOtildes position in theCategories as follows32

30 See Arist Metaph III3 999a6-14 Eth Eud 1218a1-8 Polit 1275a35-3831 Since it seems impractical to account for each and every (dis)agreement with pre-

vious scholarship in the footnotes I consider it best to here acknowledge my debt toall scholars listed in the bibliography though none of them puts the pieces together as I do here

32 See Enn VI11 15-30 For diff erent interpretations of this crucial passage com-pare eg K Wurm (1973) 148-151 SK Strange (1987) 965-6 C Evangeliou (1988)




First then we must take the opinion which divides beings into ten and see whether we must think they33 mean ten genera possessing the common name of OgravebeingOacute or tenkat goriai ( Enn VI11 15-18)

PrCcedilton toUcircnun tmacrn diairoumiexclnhn eTHORNw diexclka tŒ oumlnta lhptiexclon naskopoegraventapntildetera diexclka giexclnh deYacute nomUcirczein aeacutetoccedilw liexclgein koinoegrave ocircnntildematow tuxntildenta toegrave micro kathgorUcircaw diexclka

The description Ocircthe opinion which divides beings into tenOtilde is remarkablin that it mentions neither the term OcircgenusOtilde nor the term OcirccategoryOtilde Treason becomes clear immediately in order to understand the nature of this division Plotinus suggests we decide between two conceivableinter-

pretations of it viz whether the ten items listed are ten genera possess-ing the common name of OcircbeingOtilde or tenkat goriai To avoid bias I shallleave the termkat goria untranslated until the next section

To begin with Plotinus acknowledges that those who held this position were right in believing that OcircbeingOtilde is homonymous in relation to the tekinds of being (ie they rightly share the name of OcircbeingOtilde although thbeing of each is different) This statement secures the number often itemsas against the possibility of an overarching genus of OcircbeingOtilde34 To decidebetween the two interpretations (genera orkat goriai ) it will be necessary

to explore the ontological structure of the entities supposed to be embracedby the ten itemsas those who divide beings into ten perceived it This Isubmit is the nature of the following investigation

Plotinus next turns to a series of questions that now appear prior Thesequestions spring from the separation between the intelligible and sensiblerealms which he takes for granted They constitute a specication of theterm OcircbeingsOtilde Does the division into ten apply to both intelligible and sensible beings or only to sensible beings while fewer apply to intelligiblebeings (the converse is implausible) Can both realms be brought under a single genus (which assumes synonymy) or does homonymy obtainbetween intelligible and sensible beings If homonymy obtains the num-ber of different genera will be higher than ten (viz up to twenty) If theyspeak of a single genus for both realms they will violate the maxim that

99-101 M Isnardi Parente (1994) 228-231 R Chiaradonna (1996a) 62-3 Thiel inSimplicius (1999) x-xi All translations from Plotinus are based on the translation inAH ArmstongOtildes Loeb edition Cambridge (Mass) 1988 with modications

33 Ie the proponents of this opinion viz Aristotle together with later Peripatetics34 From our previous discussion it will be clear that this homonymy implies that

OcircbeingOtilde cannot be thegenus of the ten categories as indeed Aristotle argued at Metaph998b22-28




there is no common genus covering an ordered series35 ndash on the assump-tion of course of the priority of intelligible over sensible beings In shortthen an interpretation that speaks often items which are consideredgen-era and coverboth realms cannot be sustained36

However at VI11 28-30 the tension is resolved Plotinus notes thefact that those who divided beings into ten did not even mention intelli-gible beings in their division Indeed Aristotle does not mention intelli-gible beings among his examples in theCategories Plotinus infers that these peoplehad no intention to include intelligible beings ie the most authentic beings

But in their classication they are not speaking about the intelligible beings so

they did not want to classify all beings but left out those which are most authen-tically beings ( Enn VI11 28-30)

llŒ perUuml tCcediln nohtCcediln katŒ tmacrn diaUcircresin oeacute liexclgousin oeacute plsaquonta ra tŒ oumlntadiaireYacutesyai currenboulregyhsan llŒ tŒ mlsaquolista oumlnta paraleloUcircpasi

Despite the criticism entailed by thenal quali cation of intelligiblebeings this statement contains a straightforward judgment of the intendedscope of AristotleOtildesCategories Hence it is only natural that for the gen-

era of intelligible being Plotinus will have to turn elsewherendash to the veGenera of PlatoOtildesSophist (see VI2)ndash whereas he will be able to take hiscue from AristotleOtildesCategories (if he so wishes) only when attemptingan examination of sensible OcircbeingOtilde (see VI3) To this extent Plotinus mabe seen as acknowledging and respecting the fact that in theCategoriesAristotle intended to deal with the sensible realm only In Porphyry weshall nd the same position37

In the next chapter (VI12) Plotinus investigates the alternative inter-pretation that theten items aregenera of only the sensible realm Can thesensible substances mentioned by Aristotle be comprised under a singlegenus (and hence) synonymously Given the facts that Aristotle (1) callsmatter form and composite OcircsubstancesOtilde in Metaphysics VII and (2) callsboth primary and secondary substances OcircsubstancesOtilde inCategories 5 this

35 See the fundamental paper by AC Lloyd (1962) with AC Lloyd (1990) ch 336 Further arguments are added in IV24-837 This interpretation is not new with Plotinus it is attested for Eudorus of

Alexandria ap Simplin Cat 20610-15 Boethus of Sidon ap Simplin Cat 785and was even considered by Lucius and Nicostratus ap Simplin Cat 7315-16 SeeSK Strange (1987) 969-970 contrast R Chiaradonna (1996a) 72-6




interpretation is again at variance with the maxim that there is no com-mon item over an ordered series

In general Plotinus concludes it is impossible to tell what substanceis38 We shall have to restrict this remark to the option he is discussing

here the interpretation that theten items are consideredgenera of sensi-ble being in the light of the fact that Aristotle has them embrace severalordered series Indeed if there is nothing common to these series as themaxim stipulates it will be impossible to grasp what eg substance isThe problem is not an omission on AristotleOtildes part to provide a denitionof substance nor the fact that ashighest genera the ten items cannot bede ned by genus and differentia for lack of a higher genus39 Rather themaxim Ocircthere is no common item over and above an ordered seriesOtilde forbids the usual solution in the case of highest genera viz to infer the com-mon item by induction from the items it embraces Plotinus rightly notesthat the identication of a proper characteristic (agravedion) could not helpalleviate this problem even if it were certain that AristotleOtildes proper char-acteristic of substance (Ocircto be able to receive contraries while remainingnumerically one and the sameOtildeCat 5 4a10-11) applied to all things hecalls OcircsubstanceOtilde40 For fromTopics I5 102a18f and I8 103b9-12 it is

clear that a proprium is a convertible predicate that doesnot belong in theessence therefore it cannot reveal what substance is From the discussionso far it follows that if the division of beings into ten is to be maintainedthe ten items cannot be consideredgenera

Let us take stock From VI11 15 onwards Plotinus has been trying tounderstand the claim that beings are to be divided into ten in the termsused by its proponents while mainly relying on information he draws fromAristotleOtildesCategories and Metaphysics Are the ten items genera orkat -goriai with respect to the beings they embrace It turns out they cannot be genera because Aristotle uses the term OcircsubstanceOtilde for a number oitems that constitute different ordered series Hence the name used to des-ignate them is not the name of agenus

Throughout the argument we have found that the term OcircgenusOtilde is usedin the same Aristotelian sense not in the sense of the Platonic genus41

38 Enn VI12 1539 Plotinus uses this argument in the case of the true highest genera he identies in

VI2 see VI28 43-44 Note however that at this point Plotinus has not even decided whether the ten items are genera or not

40 For further discussion of AristotleOtildes criteria see below pp 508f41 Pace M Isnardi Parente (1994) who reads the Platonic genus back into Enn




This supports the view that the entire discussion in VI1 is a seriousattempt by Plotinus to reach an interpretation of the division of beingsinto ten that accords with AristotleOtildes naming practice in both theCategories and the Metaphysics

412 The term kat goria and its cognatesBut what does the termkat goria stand for Is it a new logical term ona par with a genus designed by Plotinus to cover collections that consti-tute a series of prior and posterior42 Or does it simply mean OcircnameOtilde or OcircpredicateOtilde being a more general term than OcircgenusOtilde

At the start of VI13 Plotinus is left with the alternative interpretationthat the ten items arekat goriai which he introduces by asking whether

we should speak of a singlekat goria when collecting together intelligi-ble substance matter form and the composite From here on Plotinus willdiscuss the ten items one by one In each case he will ask not only whether the item is a genus orkat goria but also inquire whether it is asinglegenus orkat goria Although unity is paramount to PlotinusOtilde ontologicalconcerns we should note that a division into ten is feasible only when theunity of each item can be sustained Therefore certain interpretations of

the entities named by each of the ten items may be rejected if the unityof the kat goria cannot be upheld This is as much a concern of Aristotleas it is of PlotinusOtilde own project

Under the heading of the alternative option of a singlekat goria 43

instead of a single genus Plotinusrst considers a new line of defensefor Aristotle the introduction of a different concept of genus as the com-mon ancestor of a whole family which may again cover both intelligibleand sensible substance (VI13 3-5)44 This solution is rejected since it

would compriseall categories under substance given that the nine non-

VI1 thus charging Plotinus with a Ocircforced PlatonicOtilde interpretation of the maxim thapriors (ie intelligibles) and posteriors (ie sensibles) have nothing in common

42 So C Horn (1995) 41-48 see further note 6943 Note that Plotinus does not deal with this option as a variety of OcircgenusOtilde but as

a variety ofkathgorUcirca See further below p 51044 The inclusion of intelligible substance in this alternative shows that Plotinus did

not forget his own interests not that he is retracting even the moderate results of VI12 pace C Evangeliou (1988) 101 Moreover we know from Simplin Cat 826-9 that Alexander regarded the separate intelligible form as an individual substancecf Porphin Cat 91 14-16 P Aubenque (1985) 20-40 rightly emphasizes that Plotinushere rejects theprogravew sectnrelationship between substances that Porphyry was to use inhis attempts at harmonising Plotinus with Aristotle on this score cf P Hadot (1990)






testify that a collection to which akat goria is applied may comprise orderedseries contraries and negations48

In sum Plotinus claims to have shown what Aristotle must haveintended when he wrote theCategories in view of his application of cat-

egory-names in the Metaphysics So far PlotinusOtilde investigation has yielded a division of being the partsof which are designated by means of names that correspond to sets of non-essential properties In VI34-5 of which we can only scratch the sur-face here49 Plotinus again scrutinizes the characteristics of substancein their application to matter form and composite respectively NowPlotinus stresses that in each case they apply in different and even con-trary ways (VI35 36-39 VI38 9-12) Quite in line with VI1 thenPlotinus is willing to admit that the three have a lot in common thoughemphatically not their being which explains once again why they do not belong to a single (Aristotelian) genus of being (VI37 12-16) In addi-tion to VI1 Plotinus now shows in great detail that Aristotle applies thecharacteristics of substance with the same variety of meaning with whichhe applies the names of the ten items Since in Aristotle the applicationof the ten names is warranted by the set of characteristics of each we

may surmise that on PlotinusOtilde interpretation AristotleOtildes naming practicregarding the names of the ten items is in agreement with the ways in which their respective sets of characteristics are considered applicable

Now we are in a position to try and understand the meaning of the termkat goria which we have left untranslated so far It will be clear that Plotinus opts forkat goria as a designation of the names of the ten kindsof being he is investigating only after he has tried various applications of the term OcircgenusOtilde as Aristotle understood it viz as an item that is Ocircsaid a subjectOtilde (liexclgesyai kayƒ ecircpokeimiexclnou) in the wording ofCategories 2

while emphasizing the maxim that there is no genus over an orderedseries When this fails he retreats to the equally Aristotelian alternative of kat goria Since Plotinus has not introduced his own logical notions sofar we may surmise that this term must refer to the more generalAristotelian notion of OcircnameOtilde OcircdesignationOtilde or OcircappellationOtilde50

48 See Enn VI14 51-52 VI19 28 35ff 49 For more detail see C Evangeliou (1988) 144-150 and M Isnardi Parente (1994)

ad loc 50 It seems unnecessary to speak of predication proper since Plotinus does not

compare statements like Ocircform is a substanceOtilde but acts of naming (eg form is callesubstance)




It is signi cant that PlotinusOtilderst option under the heading ofkat goriaconcerns a different concept of OcircgenusOtilde (viz the ancestor of a family) Thiseems to underline the fact that the previous chapter tried tond an inter-pretation while employing a single concept of genus only But what does

the concept of the ancestor genus have in common with the variety of other items that come under the heading ofkat goria itself (ordered seriescontraries negations) Only that in all cases the same name is used todesignate them as members of a collection It would seem then that inthe texts we have discussed abovekat goria is to be interpreted as thegenus-term of the items OcircgenusOtilde and Ocircancestor genusOtilde a name appliedcertain items collected under that name for a particular reason51

This interpretation may gain credibility when we realize that Aristotleused the termkat goria in very much the same sense inCategories 53a33-b9

It is a characteristic of substances and differentiae that all things called from themare so called synonymously For all names from them are said of either of theindividuals or of the species For from a primary substance there is no namingsince it is said of no subject and as for secondary substances the species aresaid of the individual the genus both of the species and of the individualSimilarly differentiae too are said both of the species and of the individuals52

bdquoUplsaquorxei dcent taYacutew oeacutesUcircaiw kaUuml taYacutew diaforaYacutew tograve plsaquonta sunvnaeligmvw pliexclgesyai p sai gŒr aszlig pograve toaeligtvn kathgorUcircai toi katŒ tCcediln tntildemvn kathgoroegraventai micro katŒ tCcediln eTHORNdCcediln pograve mcentn gŒr tdegw prAringthw oeacutesUcircaw oeacutedemUcirca currensgorUcirca ndash kat oeacutedenogravew gŒr `ecircpokeimiexclnou liexclgetaindash tCcediln dcent deutiexclrvn oeacutesiCcediln togravemcentn eaumldow katŒ toegrave tntildemou kathgoreYacutetai tograve dcent giexclnow kaUuml katŒ toegrave eagravedouw kaUumlkatŒ toegrave tntildemou Egravesaaeligtvw dcent kaUuml aszlig diaforaUuml kaUuml katŒ tCcediln eTHORNdCcediln kaUuml ka

tntildemvn kathgoroegraventai

On the basis of this text we can make the following equations In therst sentence what appears to be a characteristic of all substances (thingscalled from them are so called synonymously) immediately turns out to

51 This interpretation sheds light on eg VI19 30-32 OcircBut even if it was possibleto bring back all the relatives we have mentioned into one it would be impossible tobring into a single genus all the things which are grouped under the samekathgorUcirca

with themOtilde Here the possibility is denied that the very items which are grouped undea kathgorUcirca(the genus) can be brought together under agiexclnow(a species ofkath-gorUcirca or kathgorUcirca genikreg for which see further below n 55) On other interpreta-tions of the relation betweengiexclnowand kathgorUcircathis possibility would be incon-ceivable Compare HornOtildes position discussed in n 69

52 Translation after JL Ackrill AristotleOtildes Categoriesand De interpretationeOxford 1963 although he translateskathgorUcircaand cognates in terms of predication




be a characteristic of secondary substances only because primary sub-stance is said of no subject The fact that primary substance is said of nosubject is equivalent to there being nokat goria from primary substanceConversely the fact that genus species and differentia are said of a sub-

ject is equivalent to the fact that there is akat goria from them ie that all things are called OcircfromOtilde them or named after them In the present section (Cat 5 3a33-b9) Aristotle is arguing that this kind of naming is syn-onymous in the case of secondary substances as is clear from the sequel

And the primary substances admit the denition of the species and of the gen-era and the species admits that of the genus For everything said of the thingnamed will be said of the subject also (cfCat 3 1b10-15) Similarly both thespecies and the individuals admit the denition of the differentiae But synony-mous things were precisely those with both the name in common and the samede nition (cfCat 1 1a6-7) Hence all things called from substances and differ-entiae are so called synonymously

It is generally agreed that in Aristotle synonymy deals with naming rather than predication In our passagekat goria and its cognates seem to indi-cate clearly the kind of naming involved in applying a genus- species-or differentia-name to a species andor individual53 Here I suggest

Plotinus may have found his term for a kind of designation that is moregeneral than the genusAt the same time Plotinus has lifted the term from its context In

Aristotle it is not used as a designation of the ten items listed inCat-egories 4 which we customarily call Ocircthe categoriesOtilde54 Most striking isthe implication that the topmost being in theCategories primary sub-stance doesnot function as the source of akat goria because it is not said of a subject Moreover since this implication affects non-substantialindividuals as well two out of four kinds of being in theCategories arenot associated withkat goria If Plotinus uses the termkat goria for allten items in general something must have happened

We have already seen the shift that Plotinus has effected it derives fromhis focus on the status of the names OcircsubstanceOtilde OcircqualityOtilde OcircquantiOcircrelationOtilde etcas such After all it wastheir application to the membersof the collection they stand for he has been testing all along Ifthey must

53 The consequences of this interpretation for the character of theCategories assuch is outside the scope of this paper For its background see LM De Rijk (1980)LM De Rijk (1988) and AT BŠck (2000)

54 Note that Aristotle referred to them as Ocircthe genera ofkat goriai Otilde atTop I9103b20-21




be names of a different kind from genus-names55 all that remains is that they are merekat goriai 56 This statement rests on the simple fact that they are being used as names by Aristotle as Plotinus repeatedly pointsout The value of this analysis for PlotinusOtilde inquiry into ontology lies in

the fact that the decision as to what kind of name the ten items have canonly be based on the ontological structure of the collections they name acollection named by akat goria has a different structure from a collec-tion named by a proper genus We have to wait until VI3 before we get more details about the nature of such a collection57

This interpretation can be conrmed from a survey of the use ofkat -goria and its cognates in the Plotinian corpus The majority of occurrencesoutside VI1-3 concerns the rejection of names as applied to either theOne58 the Intellect59 or matter60 For instance saying OcirconeOtilde or OcircgoodOtilde ofthe One is notkat gorein but an attempt to make something clear to our-selves61 Incidentally in all these cases the texts show an equivalencebetweenlegein and kat gorein which suggests that we are dealing with ageneral concept of naming rather than with the more technical concept of predication or essential predication (asCategories 5 discussing the casesof genera species and differentiae might suggest)62 In Enn III7 [45] 2

which contains the only occurrences ofkat gorein written downafter

55 This I suggest is a possible rendering of the striking phrasekathgorUcirca genikregat VI123 24 which has caused interpreters some dif culty Cf Armstrong 1988 (Loebtranslation)ad loc Ocircgeneral categoryOtilde C Evangeliou (1988) 124 n 84 OgraveIn view ofPlotinusOtilde position on the diff erence between the termsgiexclnowand kathgorUcirca his use of the expressiongenikmacr kathgorUcircais curiousOacute cf 98 with n 27 105 better apart fromthe ambiguous notion of OcircpredicateOtilde is M Isnardi Parente (1994) 296 Ocircpredicato avecarattere genericoOtilde

56 It is tempting to speculate that this use of the term is the source of our notionof category At least it would favour our suggestion that Plotinus may well have cho-sen OgraveCategoriesOacute as the proper title of AristotleOtildes work (above p 501)

57 M Isnardi Parente (1994) 250 Ocirccategoria unitˆ accidentale e nominaleOtilde is anoverstatement of what we know of PlotinusOtilde position at this stage of his argumentand even suggests the old charge of nominalism rightly rejected in more recent liter-ature Cf K Corrigan and P OOtildeCleirigh (1987) for a survey of this discussion

58 Enn II91 7 III810 30 VI737 27 (kathgoreYacutenafter a privation) VI738 passim VI741 38 VI93 49

59 Enn VI718 3260 Enn II52 7-8 For other contexts see Enn IV63 46 VI59 3261 Enn II91 1-862 The association ofkathgoreYacutenand naming seems to be conrmed by VI42 12

tmacrn toegrave ocircnntildematow feUumlw kathgorUcircan t dianoUcircamp tograve legntildemenon lambaniexcltv Incidentallythis statement nicely captures the low status of the human activity ofkathgoreYacuten




VI1-3 [42-44] wend the same concept63 Whatever happened in VI1-3it did not change PlotinusOtilde use of this term

Within the treatise VI1-3 the occurrences ofkat goria and its cognatescan be subsumed under the following headings a general designation of

the application of a name64

more particularly the application of the nameof one of the ten items of theCategories or candidates for such a posi-tion65 or the application of the name of one of the true genera Plotinusde nes in VI266 Two of these occurrences concern the subsumption of ordered series67 and contraries68 by which Plotinus intends to exclude thepossibility of a single genus The termkat goria as such does not occur in VI2 The verbkat gorein has wider application notably in relation tothe Platonic genera and their origin Quite in line with the general mean-ing of the verb Plotinus uses it to cover both synonymous and homony-mous relationships69

63 There Plotinus speaks of the application ofsemnntildetatowto aTHORNAringnand not to theOne ofaTHORNAringnionto intelligible beings and of the characteristicmiexclnein currenn yennUcircto aTHORNAringn

64 Enn VI12 6 VI14 19f 51-55 VI15 13f VI125 21 VI29 7 27 VI2174 VI31 17 VI35 18 23 VI315 765 Enn VI11 17 VI13 1 6 VI14 26 VI19 30-32 VI110 40-42 (cfVI112 14f) VI112 52 VI113 6 12 30 VI114 21-4 VI115 11 VI116 3VI122 18 VI123 24 (kathgorUcirca genikreg see note 55) VI124 6 VI33 3 19VI314 20 VI319 3

66 See Enn VI23 2f 6 14-17 VI28 43-44 cf VI321 3 24 concerning motionVI219 13-17 VI220 8

67 See Enn VI14 51-5268 See Enn VI19 28 35ff 69 C Horn (1995) 41-48 has argued thatkat goria is a technical term Plotinus designed

to cover ordered series in particular participation series from original down to imageThese ordered series display homonymy in a sense also crafted by Plotinus tot thesecases (p 35-37 49-61) However Horn himself notes (p 55) that already Arist

Metaph I6 987b9-10 and I9 990b6-8 used the term homonymy to refer to the rela-tion between Platonic Forms and their images Although homonymy can be appliedto participation series in my opinion there is no basis in the Plotinian corpus for HornOtildes inference (he is not able to cite a text) that the name of OcircsubstanceOtilde which applied to the two homonymous realms is therefore the perfect example of akat go-ria (p 41-48) If it were this would run counter to the actual use Plotinus makes of the termkat goria as surveyed in this paper Of course this does not weaken HornOtildesinteresting claim that in Plotinus homonymy serves as a device to describe Aristoteliancurrenfiexcljhwseries which is particularly obvious in PlotinusOtilde discussion of number cfVI66 VI613 27ff with C Horn (1995) 149-288 But this does not coverallcases of homonymy for Horn himself notes diff erent uses of homonymyibid 50nn 101-103




Discussing the category of relatives Plotinus hints that different andeven contrarylogoi may be referred to a certain likeness and a singlekat -goria (eTHORNw otildemointildethtlsaquo tina kaUuml kathgorUcircan mUcircan) without specifying thenature of this likeness (VI19 27-32) I suggest that here Plotinus may

have in mind the likeness consisting in the criteria Aristotle used to dis-tinguish the categories one from the other ndash rather than the likenessbetween original and image In VI19 25-39 Plotinus is drawing the con-sequences from his earlier discussion of the relation between original andimage for the category of Relation he is not applying this relation to thenotion ofkat goria 70

413 The Categoriesin Enn VI2-3 the new genusAt this point PlotinusOtilde interpretation of AristotleOtildesCategories could haveended In that case we would have gained the result that Plotinus believedthat Aristotle introduced the categories as general names of collectionsof items that do not answer his own criteria for being a genus Since thisresult does not have any conceivable relation with Platonic ontology hemight have left it there But he did not

In VI21 1-6 Plotinus clearly marks the transition from other peopleOtildes

views (Aristotle and the Stoics) to his own view which he wishes to traceback to Plato In this second part of the treatise Plotinus freely speaks of genera as causes and principles residing in Intellect in addition to their comprising species and individuals even before their actual division takesplace (ie either in our thought or at lower levels of the procession)Clearly according to Plotinus only the Platonic genera (being or sub-stance sameness otherness rest and motion) that constitute the realm of true being are rightly called OcircgeneraOtildendash in this way lling the gap left whenin VI1 the ten items of theCategories turned out not to be genera at allbut merekat goriai Although the ve genera are predicated of their species as we would expect of genera Plotinus admonishes us not tobelieve they would thereby vanish into their species (or individuals)71 Heemphasizes that they have two simultaneous modes of being they exist

wholly in their species and individualsas well as in their own right Themutual relationship of these genera is striking motion rest sameness and

otherness coexist with substance as its constitutive actualities (currenniexclrgeiai)72

70 So Horn see previous note71 See Enn VI219 12-17 which further explains VI212 11-14 This passage

shows the genus to have a blend of logical and ontological functions which is char-acteristic of Plotinus see AC Lloyd (1990) 81-85




In VI214 Plotinus prepares us for his view of the sensible world bydrawing a parallel between the single intelligible substance and its con-stitutive actualities on the one hand and on the other hand a particular composite substance (so-called) and its constituents which are in fact actu-

alities (currenniexclrgeiai) of a speci c principle (lntildegow) itself an image of itscounterpart in Intellect73 These are to be equated Plotinus suggests withthe generic or specic descriptions ofCat 5 3b15-16 True sensible qual-ities (plsaquoyh) merely supervene on this so-called substance from outside

when undergoing the effects of another substanceOtildes actuality74 At the endof VI215 Plotinus takes up this parallel when he states that only whenthe primary genera proceed to lower levels do they produce other things

which are no longer a substance but so-called qualied and quanti edsubstances He concludes Ograveand let us grant that these are non-primarygeneraOacute75 So although his interpretation of AristotleOtildesCategories did not provide us (and him) with OcircgeneraOtilde as opposed tokat goriai in the sensi-ble realm Plotinus now allows speaking of OcircgeneraOtilde of composite substancesndash in so far as they are contemplated as being modeled on the intel-ligible genera and therefore members of a series of participations that hasits origin in those true genera Thus in VI3 Plotinus no longer seems to

avoid the term OcircgenusOtilde in relation to the categoriesThis state of affairs is a clear indication that the interpretation of AristotleOtildesCategories not merely served to pave the way for the Platonic generabut provides the framework for PlotinusOtilde description of the sensible realmin a more than super cial way The structural parallel between the tworealms in terms of constitutive actualities already suggests how Plotinus

will ll out the structure of the sensible quasi-substance It will be a bun-dle of OcircconstitutiveOtilde qualitiesndash or rather actualities (currenniexclrgeiai) of the prin-ciples (lntildegoi) from which they originatendash and matter (VI38 19-20) itself producing supervening sensible qualities in anal effort of procession If so it makes sense to distinguish quality from eg quantity in a descrip-tion of the realm of becoming (VI38 20-23) In this context it is not out of place to take the differentiae of oneOtildes division from sense-perception

72 See Enn VI21573 The best treatment of this relation can be found in Hornoc 83-105 for a more

general treatment of Neoplatonic logic see AC Lloyd (1990) 76-9774 See Enn VI214 5-22 VI38 passim cf Enn II6 for a thorough investigation

of the complex relationship between sensible quality and true substance75 Enn VI215 16-18ugravetan dcent miexcllluacute progravew tŒ klsaquotv proiiexclnai tntildete lla ldquo oeacutekiexclti

oeacutesUcircan poieYacute llŒ poiŒn oeacutesUcircan kaUuml gigniexclsyv giexclnh oeacute prCcedilta




since sensible substance indeedconsists of sensible qualities whatever their ontological status76 Plotinus makes clear that in his perception thisview of the sensible realm owes much to PlatoOtildesTimaeus 77 The only wayto speak about the sensible world inux is by starting from sense data

the result being mere belief (pUcircstiw) based on the conuence of percep-tions (VI31015-17) Indeed one must grasp sensible substance by senserather than reason (VI38 2-3) InTimaeus 49A1-52D1 Plato too showshimself highly sensitive to the relation between our sense perceptions andour use of language Both are given the attention they deserve (no moreno less) in Enneads VI3 and Plotinus seems to be convinced that AristotleOtildesCategories should be part of that enterprise Indeed his inter-pretation of theCategories allows Plotinus to surmise that Aristotle wasacting in the same vein

414 The divisions of sensible beingThe possibility of the division of sensible substance is rooted in PlotinusOtildereception of not only PlatoOtildesTimaeus but also of the Philebus Imme-diately at the start of VI31 Plotinus opens up the possibility of divisionof sensible being in a passage echoing Philebus 17B-18C78 There Plato

advises the reader to divide the whole cosmos into its genera and speciesstep by step before giving it over to innity As an example he dividessound into syllables So Plotinus believes he is following the example of his master when he lists various possibilities of division in VI39 (a) thefour elements are distinguished from the living bodies of plants and ani-mals (b) animals are divided by habitat eg living in the water the air or on the earth (c) Lifeless bodies may be divided according to weight and lightness and their respective places in the cosmos (d) mixturesaccording to the preponderance of one element or another The series of divisions continues in VI310 (e) division by hot cold moist and dry(f) division of animals by their parts and shapes etc

These are examples of divisions resulting from the acknowledgement that a division of the secondary genera of sensible OcircsubstancesOtilde so-callemust rely only on sensible featuresndash an acknowledgement Plotinusbelieved he shared with Aristotle Therefore it need not be surprising that

in VI39-10 Plotinus raties divisions of sensible reality which Aristotleactually employed in his physical works Aristotle lists the four elements

76 Cf already VI214 5-977 See espTim 49A1-52D178 Cf Polit 262a-cCrat 424C5ff with Arist Phys III4 204a4 12-17




together with the living bodies of plants and animals as things which exist by nature (as opposed to artifacts see Phys II1) or substances ( MetaphVII2) The distinction between living and lifeless bodies (a) lies at theheart of his distinction between psychology and biology on the one hand

and the more general characteristics of physical bodies (both living andlifeless) on the other In psychology he discusses the soul in general asthe cause of different expressions of life ( De anima Parva naturalia ) inthe biological works animals are divided by among other things (b) habi-tat (eg HA VII-VIIIGA III11 Resp 15) and (f) their parts and shapes( PA passim ) Weight and lightness (c) determine both the characteristicmovements of the four elements and their respective natural places (espCael IV4-6) The four basic qualities hot cold moist and dry (e) explainhow the four elements inuence each other (GC II) for instance (d) informing mixtures of all four elements the characteristics of which can beexplained according to the preponderance of one element or another (com-pare GC I10 II7-8 and Meteor IV)

Among the list of possible divisions there is one exceptional case withrespect to the elements Plotinus considers an epistemologicalndash as opposedto an ontologicalndash priority of particulars over universals (VI3919-42)

This distinction between individual and universal is not a division of sub-stance he claims because it does not reect a difference in reality but adistinction between what is prior and posterior to us in terms of knowl-edge (VI3939-40) It is we may add quite in line with the acknowledge-ment that our grasp of the sensible world starts with sense perception not thought Of course as Plotinus explains in detail the truth is that onto-logically speaking (Ocircby natureOtilde) the genus is prior to the species and thspecies to the individual It will be clear that in view of his own concept of genus he cannot accept a genus to be posterior to the species it gen-erates Here he is exploiting the familiar Aristotelian progression fromOcircprior to usOtilde to Ocircprior by natureOtilde to establish the priority of the intellible genus79

79 M Isnardi Parente (1994) 450 rightly notes that the priority of genus over speciescan be found inCat 13 15a4-7 though the reason given there is that the presence of the genus animal does not entail the presence of one of its species whereas the con-verse holds IndeedCat 5 2b7-28 stating that the species is OcirccloserOtilde to the primarysubstance than the genus is concerned with the informative character of species-namesrather than ontological priority A rich discussion of the problem of the priority of uni-versals can be found in Simplin Cat 8214-8533 for which see my translation withnotes in FAJ De Haas and B Fleet (2001)




Together VI39-10 are of paramount importance for our evaluation of PlotinusOtilde attitude to AristotleOtildesCategories We can now see that Plotinusaccepts the divisions of being that Aristotle explored in his physical writ-ings because he believes that Aristotle tried to devise a division of sen-

sible being along the lines Plato laid down in the Philebus and theTimaeus 80 Even if Plotinus wishes to correct thatrst attempt to comply with Plato this does not mean he has to reject theCategories to replaceit with his own ontological scheme On the contrarybecause Plotinus hasbeen able to show that in theCategories Aristotle grappled with nameshe applied to collections of items gathered together by a set of non-sub-stantial characteristics it becomes clear that precisely in doing so Aristotleshows that he correctly grasped the feeble ontological structure of the sen-sible realm In this light AristotleOtildes divisions of sensible being in his phys-ical works are acceptable to Plotinusndash on the condition that we are fullyaware that AristotleOtildes categories can be called OcircgeneraOtilde of the sensibrealm only in so far as they mirror the true intelligible generandash not because they are logical genera according to AristotleOtildes standards

42 Porphyry

If we have succeeded in showing that Plotinus set out to integrateAristotleOtildesCategories into his Platonic metaphysical framework whilealso allowing the basic distinctions made in AristotleOtildes physical works it

will be less surprising to see Porphyry turning to the study of Aristotle with unprecedented enthusiasm81 just after Enn VI1-3 became available82

Leaving all speculation behind however let us see whether Porphyry

80 On this point he may simply have followed AlexanderOtildes view of the aim of theCategories as quoted by Simpliciusin Cat 108-19 esp 13-15 According to this text Aristotle Ocircdivided being not into particulars (which are ungraspable and unknowablebecause of their number and multifarious variability) but into these ten highest gen-era which he called categories being most generic and themselves not a subject for anything whatsoever ( )Otilde However it should be noted that the vocabulary of thetext between parentheses sounds suspiciously Platonic Perhaps it is a comment inserted by Simplicius along the same line of interpretation as that adopted byPlotinus

81 In Porphyrius (1993) Smith lists fragments from and testimonies of commentarieson De interpretatione Sophistici elenchi Physics Nicomachean Ethics and perhaps(parts of the) Metaphysics

82 From PorphVita Plotini 14 it is clear that Porphyry left for Sicily just after Plotinus had nished writing VI1-3




addressed AristotleOtildesCategories in a way that can be conceived as com-plementary to PlotinusOtilde treatment of the work Again we shall discussthough more brie y the four topics that governed our discussion of Plotinus

421 The scope and meaning of AristotleOtildes divisionBoth from the Isagoge and from the question-and-answer commentary onthe Categories it is clear that Porphyry treats theCategories as a workfor beginners in philosophy83 Porphyry attributes this approach to Her-minus one of the teachers of Alexander of Aphrodisias thus giving it Peripatetic authority84 As said before Porphyry avoids ontological issuesin particular issues dealt with in AristotleOtildes Metaphysics such as further kinds of quality85 He holds on to the maxim that theCategories starts itsphilosophical analysis from uninformed everyday speech86 Porphyry re-gards theCategories as concerned with the generic classication of sim-ple words which mankind adopted to signify things in the sensible worldaround us87 This theory can be regarded as a extension of the Aristotelianmaxim that individuals are closer to us in terms of knowledge to whichPlotinus referred (VI3938-39)88 It at once entails and explains the

restriction of the scope of theCategories to the sensible realm IndeedPorphyry explicitly tells us that Aristotle did not intend to discuss intelli-gible substances although he feels the need to add that these are of courseprior by nature to sensible substances89 Porphyry recognizes matter formand composite as AristotleOtildes sensible substances but claims that only the

83 Isag 13-16in Cat 5921-2 13428-9 14111-1284 In Cat 5917-3385 At in Cat 13420-29 (ad 10a25 Ocircperhaps another kind of quality might come to

lightOtilde) Porphyry refers to the Metaphysics for further discussion not suited for begin-ning students Cf Ad Gedalium ap Simplin Cat 2138-28 = 70F Smith 22-29

86 Note that S Ebbesen (1990) esp 144 146 148 reconstructs PorphyryOtildes logic asa conscious eff ort to avoid (so as not to contradict) Platonic ontology

87 Porphin Cat 5720-5820 915-12 Straightforward names for sensible entitiesare called words of rst imposition The De interpretatione deals with words of secondimposition like OcircnounOtilde and OcircverbOtilde Porphin Cat 5832-592 See further S Ebbesen(1990) For a more formal description of PorphyryOtildes semantics see AC Lloyd (1990ch 2 For the adoption of this theory by later commentators see P Hoff mann (1987)

88 As Strange in Porphyry (1992) 34 n 23 remarks this theory may have its rootsin discussions concerning the natural or articial origin of language At the same timeit is a reaction against AlexanderOtildes claim that the separate intelligible form is amongprimary substances (see n 44 above)

89 Porphin Cat 9114-27




last is treated by theCategories whereas both the former are referred toindirectly viz as parts of the composite90

In sum with respect to the scope and meaning of theCategoriesPorphyry either repeats or develops the position taken by Plotinus Even

in the brief question-and-answer commentary he refers to Peripateticsources to conrm his interpretation

422 The term kat goriaand its cognatesPorphyry denes kat goria as a signi cant term used to name and to speakof an object present to sense perception (touch or sight) or as the appli-cation of such a name91 A full survey of all occurrences ofkat goria andcognates in Porphyry shows his close adherence to AristotleOtildes text as wellas complete agreement with the use of the term in Plotinus92 The lack of exceptional occurrences can at least partly be explained from the fact that Porphyry limits his discussion of categories to the sensible realm his start-ing point lies past the dif culties Plotinus had to raise

423 The new genusIf a fundamental disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry existed one

locus for it would be the revised notion of genus Plotinus explored in VI2and its mirror image the Ocircnon-primary generaOtilde of the categories of thsensible realm However PorphyryOtildes Isagoge immediately introduces thenew kind of genus to the philosophical novice despite his claim that heis going to explain pieces of predominantly Peripatetic OcirclogicalOtilde doctrine93

His list of meanings of the term OcircgenusOtilde includes OcircoriginOtilde or Ocircprinci( rxreg either an ancestor or geographic origin) and Ocircfamily descendingfrom a common ancestorOtilde the members of which have a relation betweenthemselves and towards their ancestor He states that the philosophicallyrelevant notion of genus is different from bothndash as we might expect after PlotinusOtilde discussion of the Aristotelian genus in VI11-3 (see above)However Porphyry continues it may have received its name because it combines both notions it isboth a principleand the class of which the

90 Porphin Cat 8813-2291 Porphin Cat 566-13 5718-5821in Cat 9212-17 is most illustrative92 Listing hundreds of rather unspectacular occurrences here seems super uous In

short kat goria is used almost exclusively for reference to AristotleOtildes categoriesthough sometimes wend its original meaning of OcircaccusationOtilde (cfin Cat 566-7)

Kat gorein is used for naming and predication on every level of reality93 Isag 114-16




principle is the origin94 What is more the categories are regarded as suchgenera95 Consequently Porphyry teaches that genera are prior by natureto individuals96 This introduction to ontology is necessary because evenon HerminusOtilde view a preconception (prntildelhciw) of each genus is a neces-

sary condition of recognizing the kind of signication involved in a par-ticular case97 In explicit adherence to Boethus and Herminus Porphyryallows the genera of being in his commentary on theCategories only inso far as genera ofnames are supposed to mirror the structure of the gen-era of being from which they are also said to derive their differentiae98

Perhaps the Isagoge is simply less sophisticated in this respect althoughthe strong parallelism between the two sets of genera which is reinforcedby the position of PorphyryOtildes Tree in the Isagoge 99 strongly suggests that for Porphyry too the nal purpose of the classication of names will bethe classi cation of being although an emphasis on the former allows himto seek agreement with Peripatetic and Stoic sources100

It will be clear that this concept of genus owes more to Plotinus thanto Aristotle Porphyry need no longer have any qualms about using theterm OcircgenusOtilde to designate the categories of the sensible realm after adopting PlotinusOtilde Platonisation of this notion Porphyry posits ten genera of

names which run closely parallel to ten genera of being I suggest that this construal of the topic of theCategories ascribed to Boethus andHerminus was made acceptable to Porphyry by Plotinus Plotinus hadanalyzed the meaning of AristotleOtildes division into ten by examining theiruse as names and had shown that the use of names for so-called sub-

94 Isag 118-21595 Isag 66-7 11-12 cf 421-22 hence in the Isagoge the parallellism between

the ten genera of being and the ten kinds of names is perhaps closer thanin Cat5929-31 suggests

96 Isag 1410-12 1512-13 16-20 173-4 The priority is reversed if we under-stand OcircgeneraOtilde as acquired concepts and Ocircindividual substanceOtilde as the complete clof individuals on the existence of which these concepts depend as Porphin Cat9012-917 teaches In this way he rescues the priority of individual substance on whichAristotle insisted

97 Porphin Cat 5925-2898 Porphin Cat 5719-5933 with reference to Boethus and Herminus at 5917-

33 Cf 8620-3799 See further below pp 522f

100 From Simpliciusin Cat 108-19 we know that Alexander regarded the categoriesas the most generic genera as did Porphyry The role of Stoic doctrine as a back-ground to the Isagoge is strongly emphasised in A De Libera and A-P Segonds(1998) esp xlv-lxi




stances in the sensible world was acceptable only in so far as these mir-rored their intelligible principles Starting from this position Porphyrycould well draw the conclusion that (as at least some Peripatetics had sug-gested) not only the categories but also the items they collect are primar-

ily names Such a distinction between names and reality is convenient given the limited purpose of theCategories but at the same it does jus-tice to the distance between our everyday naming practice and the Platonicview of the ontological status of the sensible realm101

Furthermore the order of priority between individual and universal sub-stance is no problem for Porphyry either because he embraces AlexanderOtildesview of universals as individual natures which may be called OcircuniversalOtildeor OcircparticularOtilde depending on how we conceive of them102 This soundsvery much like PlotinusOtilde claim that the distinction between individualand universal exists only with respect to our knowledge not in reality(VI3939-40) and one may suspect that AlexanderOtildes theory of universalsinspired the Plotinian passage as well103

The major difference with Plotinus is PorphyryOtildes repeated statement thatthe number of categories of being (as well as the number of genera of names) is ten Since the second half of PorphyryOtildes question-and-answer

commentary is lost we have to rely on the fragments of Ad Gedalium andlater reports to see that Porphyry indeed commented on all ten cate-gories104 In this respect Porphyry may well have extended PlotinusOtilde con-structive approach to theCategories although perhaps he was entitled todo so if he chose to remain as much as possible within the Aristotelianperspective of VI1 After all he may have read Plotinus asrst allow-ing Aristotle his tenkat goriai ndash if not his tengenera ndash and subsequentlyallowing these to be called OcircgeneraOtilde when considered from a Platonicperspective

424 The division of sensible being PorphyryOtildes TreeLike Plotinus it is to PlatoOtildes Philebus that Porphyry links his efforts toexplain the hierarchy which reaches from ten highest genera (the cate-gories) through intermediate speciesgenera down to the most specic species

101 See above sections 413-4102 Porphin Cat 7524-29 8111-22 Cf AlexQuaest I11 with MM Tweedale

(1984)103 For this problem of priority in theCategories see above note 79 for its wider

implications see FAJ De Haas (forthcoming)104 See frr 71F-74F Smith




thus excluding the innite number of individuals which does not lend itself to true knowledge105 This structure obtains within each category106 as heillustrates from the category of substance under the genus substance we

nd the series of body animate body animal rational animal man and

the individual men Socrates and Plato107

This example has become knownas PorphyryOtildes Tree although it contains only the OcircanimateOtilde branch of thtree of substance108

It will be obvious that this division featuring in an introduction toAristotleOtildesCategories expresses a division of sensible being in terms of the categories regarded as Platonic genera and does so in compliance withPlatoOtildes exhortations to approach sensible being in this way Again thereis not a glimpse of a difference between Plotinus and Porphyry in thisrespect More clearly than Plotinus however Porphyry links these effortsto a kind of logic which as he perceived it was developed mainly in thePeripatetic tradition We have already seen that PlotinusOtilde approach to theCategories consisted in applying Peripatetic concepts to the understand-ing of AristotleOtildes intentions He too examined the categories in so far asthey are used as a kind of names Again we see that PorphyryOtildes strategyis not only to adopt PlotinusOtilde perspective but also to embed it more

clearly and more elaborately within the framework of the philosophicaltradition not least the Peripatetic tradition On my reading of Plotinus andPorphyry this strategy should be regarded as complementary to PlotinusOtildeposition regarding theCategories not as opposed to it

5 Conclusions

In this paper I have introduced a reading of Plotinus Enneads VI1-3[41-43] which regards his treatiseOn the genera of being as a coherent

whole in which AristotleOtildesCategories is explored in a way that turns it into a decisive contribution to PlotinusOtilde Platonic ontology As a conse-quence of this interpretation Plotinus comes to acknowledge the goodPlatonic sense of the divisions of sensible being that structure AristotleOtildes

105 Isag 613-16106 Isag 414-20107 Isag 421-25 with Isag 425-56 explaining the structure by means of this

example cf Isag 103-18108 The OcircinanimateOtilde branch is brie y referred to at Isag 1014-15 Diagrams can be

found in J Mansfeld (1992) 98 and Simplicius (1990) 17 n 46 Of course this divi-sion as well as its impossible attribution to Aristotle are much older than Porphyryas Mansfeldoc 78-133 amply illustrates




physical works In addition I have shown that PorphyryOtildes Isagoge andcommentaries on theCategories start with the adoption of PlotinusOtilde point of viewndash including his notion of genus and his conviction that Aristotletried to do what Plato prescribedndash and proceed by explaining its conse-

quences for a more detailed reading of theCategories as we shouldexpect in a commentary After PlotinusOtilde integration of theCategories intothe Platonic frame of thought Porphyry saw the possibilities of exploitingthe Peripatetic tradition (among others) both as a means of supporting thePlatonic interpretation of theCategories and as a source for solutions totraditional questions to which the genre of the philosophical commentarycommitted him His allegiance to a division of being into ten and hisemphasis on semantics instead of ontology can be explained from this ori-entation In the light of these investigations the alleged disagreement betweenPlotinus and Porphyry on theCategories changes its appearance com-pletely There are differences but they can be better explained as exten-sions of PlotinusOtilde perspective on theCategories and its role in PlatonismIn the end we can say that Plotinusndash not Porphyryndash was primarily respon-sible for the important role theCategories was able to play in Westernphilosophical thought109

Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Nijmegen

Bibliography

Anton John P [1976] OgravePlotinusOtilde Approach to Categorial TheoryOacute In RB Harri[ed] The Signicance of Neoplatonism 83-99 Norfolk

Aubenque Pierre [1985] OgravePlotin et Dexippe ex g tes des cat gories dOtildeAristoteOacuteC Rutten and A Motte [eds] Aristotelica M langes offerts ˆ M De Corte 7-40Bruxelles-Li ge

BŠck Allan T [2000] AristotleOtildes Theory of Predication LeidenChiaradonna Riccardo [1996a] OgraveLOtildeinterpretazione della sostanza aristotelica in Por rioOacute

Elenchos 17 55-94mdashmdash [1996b] OgraveSostanza ed unitˆ generica in Plotino Problemi e interpretazioniOacute

Bollettino della Societˆloso ca italiana 159 25-38

109 I would like to thank Richard Sorabji for extensive discussion of previous ver-sions of this paper as well as Jaap Mansfeld and Keimpe Algra for their helpfulremarks The research for this paper was conducted while the author was a ResearchFellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences at the Department of Philosophy at Utrecht University




mdashmdash [1999] OgraveOUSIA EJ OUK OUSIVN Forma e sostanza sensibile in Plotino ( Enn VI 3 [44] 4-8)Oacute Documenti e Studi sulla traditioneloso ca medievale 10 25-57

Corrigan Kevin and Padraig OOtildeCleirigh [1987] OgravePlotinian Scholarship from 1971 t1986Oacute In W Haase [ed] Aufstieg und Niedergang der Ršmischen Welt Vol II361 [579-81] Berlin-New York

De Gandillac M [1979] OgravePlotin et lalaquoM taphysiquedOtildeAristoteOacute In P Aubenque[ed] ƒtudes sur la M taphysique dOtildeAristote Actes du VIe Symposium Aristo-telicum 247-64 Paris

De Haas Frans AJ [forthcoming] OgraveModications of the Method of Inquiry in AristotleOtildes Physics I1 An essay on the dynamics of the ancient commentary traditionOacute In CHLeijenhorst et al [eds] The Dynamics of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy Leiden

De Haas Frans AJ and Barrie Fleet [2001]Simplicius On Aristotle On Categories 5-6 London

De Libera Alain and Alain-Philippe Segonds [1998] Isagoge texte grec et latin

ParisDe Rijk LM [1980] OgraveOn Ancient and Mediaeval Semantics and Metaphysics (3)OacuteVivarium 18 1-62

mdashmdash [1988] OgraveOcircCategorizationOtilde as a Key Notion in Ancient and Medieval SemanticsVivarium 26 1-18

Dillon John M [1997] OgraveIamblichusOtilde noerŒ yevrUcircaof AristotleOtildesCategories Oacute In HJBlumenthal and JF Finamore [eds] Iamblichus the philosopher 65-77 Iowa City

Ebbesen Sten [1990] OgravePorphyryOtildes Legacy to Logic a reconstructionOacute In RRKSorabji [ed] Aristotle Transformed The Ancient Commentators and Their Inu-

ence 141-71 LondonEvangeliou C [1982] OgraveThe ontological basis of PlotinusOtilde criticism of AristotleOtildes thory of categoriesOacute In RB Harris [ed] The Structure of Being A NeoplatonicApproach 72-80 Norfolk

mdashmdash [1987] OgraveThe Plotinian reduction of AristotleOtildes categoriesOacute Ancient Philosoph7 147-62

mdashmdash [1988] AristotleOtildes Categories and Porphyry LeidenGerson Lloyd P [1994] Plotinus LondonGoulet-Caz Marie-Odile [1992] OgraveLOtildearri re-plan scolaire de laVie de Plotin Oacute In

L Brisson et al [eds] Porphyre La Vie de Plotin Vol 1 229-327 ParisHadot Pierre [1990] OgraveThe harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle according to PorphyryOacuteIn RRK Sorabji [ed] Aristotle Transformed 125-40 London

Hoffmann Philippe [1987] OgraveCat gories et language selon Simplicius La question dulaquoskopos du trait aristot licien deslaquoCat goriesOacute In I Hadot [ed] Simplicius Savie son oeuvre sa survie 61-90 Berlin-New York

Hoppe O [1965] Die Gene in Plotins Enn VI2 Interpretation zur Quellen Traditionund Bedeutung der Ocircprota geneOtilde bei Plotin Diss Gšttingen

Horn Christoph [1995] Plotin Ÿber Sein Zahl und Einheit eine Studie zu den sys-tematischen Grundlagen der Enneaden Stuttgart

Isnardi Parente M [1994] Plotino Enneadi VI 1-3 Trattati 42-44 Sui generi del-lOtildeessere Napoli

Lloyd AC [1955-6] OgraveNeoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian LogicOacute Phronesis 1 58-72 146-60

mdashmdash [1962] OgraveGenus Species and Ordered Series in AristotleOacute Phronesis 7 67-90mdashmdash [1990]The Anatomy of Neoplatonism Oxford




Mansfeld Jaap [1992] Heresiography in Context HippolytusOtilde Elenchos as a Source for Greek Philosophy Leiden

Porphyrius [1993] Fragmenta Smith Andrew ed Stuttgart-LeipzigPorphyry [1992]On Aristotle Categories Translated by SK Strange London-Ithaca

NY

Saffrey Henri Dominique [1992] OgravePourquoi Porphyre a-t-il dit PlotinOacute IL Brisson et al [eds] Porphyre La Vie de Plotin Vol 2 31-64 ParisSimplicius [1990]Commentaire sur les Cat gories Pr ambule aux Cat gories

Commentaire au premier chapitre des Cat gories (p 21-40 13 Kalb eisch) TraductionPhilippe Hoffmann Commentaire et notes C Luna Vol III Leiden-New York-Koslashbenhavn-Kšln

mdashmdash [1999]Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis Translated by G Dorotheus(1540) Repr ed Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt CAGL 8 C Lohr [ed] with introductionby Rainer Thiel

Strange SK [1987] OgravePlotinus Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of theCategories Oacute In W Haase [ed] Aufstieg und Niedergang der Ršmischen Welt VolII 362 955-74 Berlin-New York

Thiel Rainer [1997] AristotelesOtilde Kategorienschrift in ihrer antiken Kommentierung Habilitationsschrift Marburg

Tweedale MM [1984] OgraveAlexander of AphrodisiasOtilde Views on UniversalsOacute Phronesis29 279-303

Wurm Klaus [1973]Substanz und QualitŠt Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation der plo-tinischen Traktate VI 1 2 und 3 Berlin-New York




being As such he rejected it because the categories were inapplicable tothe intelligible realm of real being (VI11) and apart from numerous other inconsistencies did not qualify as genera (VI12-24) However in his ownattempt to deal with sensible being he subjected each of the categories to

severe criticism so as to end up with the remnants of only four of Aris-totleOtildes categories (substance quality quantity and relation) while addingmotion as a fth (VI3) Thus he achieved at least numerical agreement

with PlatoOtildesve highest genera (being or substance otherness identityrest and motion) which he introduced as keys to the ontological structureof the intelligible realm (VI2)2

Unlike Plotinus Porphyry is said to have accepted theCategories as a work concerned with the genera of signicant terms in so far as they sig-nify beings (thus excluding propositions particles etc) He believed that Aristotle classied familiar terms taken from everyday speech (thusexcluding second-level terms like OcircgenusOtilde and OcircspeciesOtilde) Everyday sperefers to what is most familiar to us and therefore Porphyry considers theCategories to be primarily concerned with composite substances If so it is only natural that the scope of theCategories should be conned to thesensible realm Porphyry also disagreed with Plotinus in allowing all ten

categories to stand as referring to ten kinds of sensible being All in allthis interpretation turns the work into a suitable starting point for begin-ners in philosophy

The conviction that a serious disagreement concerning theCategoriesexisted between Plotinus and Porphyry has given rise to different inter-pretations of their personal relationship Perhaps PlotinusOtilde initial rejectionof theCategories when writing VI1 was already tempered under the inuenceof Porphyry so that the work could serve as a starting point for PlotinusOtildeown attempt at dealing with the sensible realm in VI33 Perhaps Porphyrydid not leave Plotinus because he was illndash as he himself wrote inVita

Plotini 11 ndash but because of their disagreement on theCategories After alldid he not devote much of his time in Sicily to commenting on theCategoriesand other works of Aristotle thus testifying to an Aristotelian turn in hisphilosophical career4

2 The diff erences between PlatoOtildesmiexclgista giexclnhand PlotinusOtilde genera will have toremain unexplored here See eg JP Anton (1976) 90-93 O Hoppe (1965) M IsnardiParente (1994) C Horn (1995) 106-148

3 See C Evangeliou (1988) 167 with n 134 See HD Saff rey (1992) esp 43-44 53 following Evangeliou and followed by

A De Libera and A-P Segonds (1998) vii-xii De LiberaOtildes interpretation of the Isagoge rests on this assumption



























































thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY


































































thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY






















































thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY









































thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY






























thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY















thought20









































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY










































































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY




























































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY















































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY





































































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY



























































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY














































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY

































































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY




















































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY








































































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY

























































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY























































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY











































































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY






























































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY


















































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY





































































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY
























































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY












































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY































42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY





















42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY













42 Porphyry



































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY




































































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY
























































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY











































5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY





























5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY

















5 Conclusions












Bibliography



































NY














Bibliography



































NY




































NY













NY








Documents

[2001] de Haas, F. - Did Plotinus and Porphyry Disagree on Aristotle's Cat