[In the following excerpt, Smith compares Porphyry's main ideas with those of his influential teacher, Plotinus, and examines Porphyry's relationship to and attitude toward his teacher.]

Porphyry, who was born some twenty-eight years after Plotinus in 232-3 A.D. and probably about twenty years before Iamblichus,¹ occupies in many ways a unique position in the history of Greek philosophy. He stands at the end of the final creative phase of Greek thought which culminates in Plotinus and at the beginning of that, at times brilliant but relatively unoriginal, period of later Neoplatonism whose main distinction seems to many to have been the sacrifice of genuine Greek rationalism to occult magico-religious practices which were meant to secure the salvation of the soul. He stands also geographically between east and west, a Greek speaker who lived for a good part of his active life at or near Rome. This fact is of no little importance when we realise that the Roman empire was being split down the centre even in his own lifetime. It is probable that the division of the Empire which culminated in the transfer of the capital to Constantinople in 330 was one factor which helped to make Porphyry so influential in the west whilst Iamblichus and Proclus are virtually unknown.² Fortunately the last of the Greek philosophers who is extensively known in the west was a great polymath and an excellent exponent of the complex doctrines of Neoplatonism. The researches of P. Courcelle³ have shown the pervading influence of this philosopher on the pagan and Christian writers of the Latin west.

J. Bidez was the first to write a detailed study of Porphyry—Vie de Porphyre, 1913. But he admits that “dans tout ce qui nous reste de ses écrits, il n'y a pas une pensée, pas une image dont on puisse affirmer à coup sûr qu'elle est de lui.”⁴ This assessment is echoed by E. R. Dodds⁵ who quotes Bidez's judgement with approval. Unfortunately little is left of Porphyry's massive output, which makes final conclusions hazardous. On the other hand it is possible to trace much of Porphyry's thought from authors whom he influenced. Although this can sometimes be an extremely dubious procedure there are occasions when a more direct use of Porphyrian ideas can be discerned and a reasonable attempt at reconstruction can be made. H. Dörrie has recently extracted the remains of Porphyry's Symmikta Zetemata from Nemesius' de Natura Hominis.⁶ The results seem to modify the idea of a totally unoriginal thinker, since Porphyry is here shown adapting Stoic terminology to Neoplatonic arguments on the relationship of soul and body in a way which is not paralleled in Plotinus' Enneads. A far more revolutionary picture, however, emerges from P. Hadot's ascription to Porphyry of an anonymous Neoplatonic commentary on Plato's Parmenides. This work has some startling things to say about the higher reaches of metaphysics—the relationship of the One to Nous. Hadot's contention was first published in an article in 1961. The consequences for Porphyrian metaphysics were drawn in his contribution to the Vandoeuvres conference dedicated to Porphyry in 1965 and are now exhaustively treated in Porphyre et Victorinus.⁷ Whether Hadot is correct in ascribing the Anonymous Commentary on the Parmenides to Porphyry is difficult to say. His arguments are very persuasive and as certain as the evidence allows. But they are not absolutely certain. As scholars reassess the evidence a general consensus may arise and the Anonymous Commentary become accepted in the Porphyrian corpus much as the de Mysteriis is now ascribed to Iamblichus. If Hadot is correct then we have a new insight into Porphyry's metaphysics the study of which has long been obscured through paucity of evidence. The traditional Porphyrian corpus is concerned more with ethics, logic, the soul and daemonology. Unfortunately the Anonymous Commentary casts little light on the old material in these fields. Hadot notes this when he admits the difficulty of comparing the Commentary with the attested works of Porphyry. “La plupart des oeuvres conservées concernent la psychologie ou la morale et n'abordent pas pour la plupart les sujets traités dans notre commentaire.”⁸

A similar state of uncertainty now attaches to the Philosophy from Oracles and the de Regressu Animae. J. O'Meara has contended that these two works are identical and that the one single work was probably late in date. Although the argument of his first book Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine has been generally rejected a recent supplement seems to open up the question again.⁹

Porphyrian studies have now reached a crisis point. General dogmatic assertions and generalisations are no longer acceptable or even possible. A further period of detailed research is required before any final assessment of Porphyry's place in the Neoplatonic tradition can be made. A collection of Porphyry's fragments is long overdue and is essential for further investigation. In this present work no attempt has been made to cover every facet of Porphyry's thought. On the contrary it is considerably limited in scope and represents no more than a small contribution to the picture although I have attempted in the conclusion to generalise on the basis of the particular topics with which I have dealt. I have chosen to deal with the traditional corpus and with what is, perhaps, its major theme—the ascent and salvation of the soul. Porphyry's search for the salvation of the soul led him from a consideration of the nature of the soul to an attempt to find a universal teaching on salvation which could even embrace the magico-religious practice of theurgy. It is some basic aspects of this theme that I propose to follow by examining Porphyry's ideas in the context of what went before and what came after. This means, within the limits here set, Plotinus, Iamblichus and Proclus.

In the first half of the work I have attempted to show something of the relationship between Porphyry and Plotinus in their speculations about the human soul, both concerning its essential nature and the way in which it can be said to “ascend.” I would not like to underestimate the middle-Platonic and Stoic influences on Porphyry¹⁰ but it is equally important to remember that Plotinus was the greatest influence on him. I hope to show how Porphyry's doctrine of the nature of soul (in some of its aspects at least) can be understood only in a Plotinian context. The problems connected with the “separation” of soul and body in the soul's “ascent,” are also important. What does “separation” mean? Do Porphyry and Plotinus mean the same thing? The ascent of the soul raises basic problems in Plotinus. Are they also present in Porphyry? Finally we turn to their attitude to the fate of man after death. The attitude to man's purpose and destiny is especially brought out in the general teaching on eschatology. What is essential to Plotinus here and how does Porphyry's position differ from it?

Almost at the opposite extreme to the deep philosophical problems in which Porphyry comes face to face with Plotinus is the concern for religious phenomena of all kinds which have or might have a bearing on the salvation of the soul. To understand Porphyry's attitude here it seems to be essential to see him in the light of subsequent thinkers for we are dealing by all accounts with the development of a theory which only later came to full fruition—the introduction of theurgy to philosophy and its consequent integration. It is not possible to judge adequately Porphyry's stance without taking into consideration the views of those who attempted to carry this integration much further than Porphyry had done.

Before entering on the discussion proper it might be useful to say something about Porphyry's personal relationship with Plotinus and of the attitude of the later Neoplatonists to him. The details of Porphyry's life and his time with Plotinus are dealt with by Bidez. Porphyry reached Plotinus at a fairly late stage after studies in Athens under Longinus. In his Life of Plotinus Porphyry has occasion to give us some idea of how he conceived of his relationship to Plotinus. One has the impression that he is trying to demonstrate his special position in Plotinus' circle of which he was one of the newer members. This is, perhaps, what we might expect of an editor who is anxious to secure his credentials, and the Life is a preface to an edition of the Enneads.¹¹ On the other hand this tendency in the Life might have wider implications. Porphyry tells us (ch. 15, Life) that he once read a poem called “The Sacred Marriage” at the feast of Plato. Someone in the audience shouted out that Porphyry must have gone mad as it was full of “the mysterious and veiled language of inspiration.” Plotinus' reply “You have shown yourself at once poet, philosopher and expounder of sacred mysteries” was cherished by Porphyry as a vindication of his standpoint. But the passage suggests less the enthusiasm of Plotinus than his broadminded tolerance towards such extravagances. Was the reporting of this episode meant to secure the stamp of the master's approval on the more un-Plotinian of Porphyry's activities—Homeric exegesis, dabbling in oracles and eventually theurgy?

This little story might be taken in itself as no more than a mere anecdote. Combined, however, with the other indications that he wants to be known as having held a special place in Plotinus' circle it is clearly more than just that. Porphyry was once asked by Plotinus to write a refutation of a scandalous interpretation of the Symposium by the rhetorician Diophanes. He tells us that Plotinus was so pleased with his effort that he kept on quoting Iliad 8.282

βάλλ' οὕτωs, αἴ χἑν τι φόωs ἄνδρεσσι γἑνηαι

So strike and be a light to men

(ch. 15).

There are two points to this incident. Porphyry wants firstly to remove Plotinus from the ranks of those who bring philosophy into disrepute by using the great master to support dishonest and licentious ideas and, secondly, to stress that it was he, Porphyry, who was chosen by Plotinus to defend philosophy and be a “light.” He again stresses his special position in the school when he refers to his editorial duties (ch. 24) as being not a self-imposed task but one commissioned by Plotinus. In ch. 21 he refers us to Longinus' comments on contemporary philosophers. This is the report on Amelius, that veteran of Plotinus' school. χατ' ἴχνη μὲν τοῦ Πλωτίνου ἐβάδιζε, τὲ δὲ ἐξεργασίᾳ πολὺs oν χαὶ τἑ τῆs ἑρμηνείαs περιβολἑ πρὸs τὸν ἐναντίον ἐχείνῳ ζῆλον ὑπήγετο. Then he comes to Longinus' reference to himself. It is in fact a rather weak recommendation. ὁ δἑ χοινὸs ἡμῶν τε χἀχείνων ἑταῖροs Βαsσιλεὺs ὁ Τύριοs οὐδ' αὐτὸs ὀλίγα πεπραγματευομἑνοs χατὰ τὴν Πλωτίνου μίμηsιν. But notice how Porphyry interprets it. He firstly prepares the ground for the general nature of the reference by saying that it was written when he had only just got to know Plotinus ἔτι ἀρχὰs ἔχοντοs τῆs πρὸs τὸν Πλωτῖνον συνουσίαs, and he goes on to interpret Longinus as suggesting that he was nearer Plotinus because he avoided τῆs 'Αμελίου περιβολῆs τὸ ἀφιλόσοφον … χαὶ πρὸs ζῆλον τὸν Πλωτίνου γράφων ἀφεώρων. When we recall that Amelius was one of Plotinus' oldest and most revered associates we see Porphyry's point. Porphyry also levels an implied criticism against Amelius in ch. 4 and at the same time records his own influence over Plotinus. Here he says that although Amelius had been with Plotinus for eighteen years he had not written much except notebooks. Plotinus he found in a similar position and in ch. 5 he records that Amelius and himself kept urging him to write. Porphyry is trying to impress upon the reader the impact of his presence at the school of Plotinus. If Amelius had not written much it is unlikely that he would have persuaded Plotinus to write. With his own arrival a new dynamism is introduced and he gets Amelius on his side in pressing Plotinus. At the end of ch. 18 he again refers to his influence in coaxing Amelius and Plotinus to write proper treatises.

If Porphyry wanted to be known as the chief pupil and closest associate of Plotinus this did not mean that he followed Plotinus slavishly. It is true that he shows great admiration for Plotinus throughout the Life and even regards him as divinely inspired but, unlike Marinus in his biography of Proclus, he also criticises the work and methods of his master. He even claims that Plotinus' powers were failing in the last treatises. He also criticises the waste of time in lectures caused by aimless questions (ch. 3). His criticism of small points derives, no doubt, from his own thoroughness. This thoroughness expresses itself in his scholarly interest in the history of philosophy, the search for a universal philosophy of salvation and his work on Platonic commentary which was held in high esteem by Proclus.¹² It manifests itself in the Life in his criticism of Amelius (ch. 7) who always used to get the name of Paulinus of Scythopolis wrong, in his accusation of lack of order in Plotinus' seminars and the comments on Plotinus' carelessness in speech and writing.¹³ He admired Plotinus' thoroughness in philosophical discussion (ch. 13 end) and although he may have shared Plotinus' view that Longinus was no philosopher he values his judgement for its fullness of background and erudite scholarship (ch. 20). Again in this criticism of Plotinus Porphyry might be trying to show his own importance.

In Eunapius' Life of Porphyry IV. 1.10 we are told that Porphyry was a good and clear exponent of Plotinus. Eunapius also tells us that when Porphyry returned to Rome after his stay in Sicily he even lectured in public—παρeει χαὶ εἰs τὸ δημόσιον χατ' ἐπίδειξιν. Even if Eunapius' testimony is rather dubious in Porphyry's case,¹⁴ this outward-going trait is clearly characteristic of Porphyry and balances Plotinus' more reserved nature. I do not mean to imply that he did not have the recluse within him. In fact at times (e.g. his retirement to Sicily) he is more extreme than Plotinus. He is a man of contradictions. But he does seem to have been more involved in the outside world than Plotinus was. His editorial work is an example of this. He wanted to record and publish Plotinus' ideas. His later marriage is also a concession to the world as is his mysterious journey to the East.¹⁵ Philosophically his greater involvement in the world shows itself in his interest in a universal way of salvation which might include all men, and in his direct clash with Christianity.¹⁶

When we look forward in time the picture is not so clear. It is still uncertain whether Iamblichus was ever an actual pupil of Porphyry or had simply studied his works.¹⁷ Nor is it completely clear whether Porphyry had a school of his own.¹⁸ Iamblichus appears in general as an opponent of Porphyry.¹⁹ It has recently been claimed that not all of Iamblichus' opposition is philosophically serious, that he is often simply trying to become independent of Porphyry.²⁰ In the points, however, which are analysed in this work there would appear to be genuine and profound differences between the two philosophers and one would not be inclined to disagree with Proclus' conventional reference to ὁ φιλόσοφοs Πορφύριοs and ὁ θεῖοs Ιάμβλιχοs.²¹ Between Plotinus and Iamblichus Neoplatonism seems in some important respects to have changed in emphasis from philosophy to theology. There are certain qualifications but, whilst it remains incorrect to call Plotinus a theologian one could not deny the term to Iamblichus in de Mysteriis. The very term appears even in the titles of important works by Proclus.²² While that need mean little in itself for the later Neoplatonists it is the outward sign of an important revolution in their concept of the relationship of man and god. What role did Porphyry play in this change? We hope to discover something of his attitude and contribution as we follow his own thought from the metaphysical doctrine of the human soul to the consideration of theurgical rites in the context of man's salvation.

Notes

1. Plotinus was born in A.D. 204-5. Porphyry tells us in the Life (ch. 2) that he died at the end of the second year of the reign of Claudius (i.e. 270 A.D.) as the age of 66. Porphyry was born in 232-3. In ch. 4 of the Life Porphyry tells ut he was thirty years old in the tenth year of the reign of Gallienus (i.e. A.D. 263) and Plotinus was fifty-nine. He probably died shortly before 305, see Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, p. 127. Iamblichus' dates are uncertain. He may have been born between A.D. 250-275. Bidez (“Le Philosophe Iamblique et son école,” p. 32) puts his death in A.D. 328 at the latest and probably around 325/6.

2. See Dörrie, “Porphyrios als Mittler zwischen Plotin und Augustin.”

3. P. Courcelle, Les lettres grecques en Occident, Paris, 1948.

4. Vie de Porphyre, p. 133.

5. Article “Porphyry” in the Oxford Classical Dictionary.

6. Porphyrios' “Symmikta Zetemata.”

7. “Fragments d'un commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parménide,” REG [Revue des Etudes Grecques] 74 (1961) 410-438; “La Métaphysique de Porphyre,” Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique, xii Porphyre, 1966; Porphyre et Victorinus, Paris, 1968.

8. Art. cit. p. 421.

9. Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine, Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica and Augustine's Dialogue of Cassiciacum.

10. Porphyry and middle Platonism: see Dörrie, “Die Schultradition im Mittelplatonismus,” (Entretiens sur l'Antiquité classique, xii Porphyre); Waszink, “Porphyrius und Numenius” (ibid.). Porphyry and the Stoics, see Dörriè Porphyrios' “Symmikta Zetemata.”

11. This may have been important if Porphyry had rivals. There was certainly an earlier edition of the Enneads by Eustochius, another of Plotinus' pupils. The evidence is in the scholiast to iv, 4, 29 end. A passage of the Enneads quoted in Eusebius P.E. XV, 10 and 22 may be part of this early edition. See further the remarks in Henry-Schwyzer vol. I, p. ixf., vol. II ixf.

12. “The history of philosophy” in four books (fragments in Nauck, op. select. The Life of Pythagoras (also in Nauck) may also have formed a part of it.) On universal salvation see ch. ix. A list of Porphyry's commentaries may be found in Bidez, Vie de Porphyre 65*-67*. For Proclus' appreciation, cf. In Rem. ii. 96, 13.¦

13. He records that Plotinus used to pronounce ἀναμιμνήσχεται as ἀναμνημίσχεται and made other mistakes in his writing (ch. 13). He criticises his untidy handwriting in ch. 8.

14. In his life of Porphyry he seems to rely greatly on Porphyry's letter to Marcella. His account of Plotinus visiting Porphyry in Sicily where he had retired in despair (V. Soph. iv. 1.7, 456) is rather fanciful and contradicts Porphyry's own account of the incident (Life ch. 11), which makes it clear that he was persuaded by Plotinus to go to Sicily as a cure for his melancholy.

15. For the marriage, see Ad Marcellam ch. 1, and for the journey, ch. 4, p. 275, 19. Cf. H. Chadwick, The Sentences of Sextus, 142f., and Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, p. 112, who consider that Porphyry was involved in the discussions which preceded the persecution of Diocletian in the edict of A.D. 303.

16. Against the Christians—frags. ed. A. Harnack, 1916, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. kl. 1916, 1 (additions in ibid., Sitzungsberichte, 1921, i. 266-84 and ii. 834f.); Hagedorn, D. and Merkelbach, R., Ein neues Fragment aus Porphyrios Gegen die Christen. V. Chr. XX, 1966, 86-90; Altheim, F. and Stiehl, R., Neue Brückstücke aus Porphyrios' χατὰ χϱιστιάνουs, Gedankschrift Rohde, 23-38; P. Nautin, Trois autres fragments du livre du Porphyre contre les chrétiens, R. Bibl. LVII, 1950, 409-416; cf. also P. de Labriolle, Porphyre et le christianisme, R.H. Ph. III, 1929, p. 385-440; Schraeder, H. O., Celsus und Porphyrius als Christengegner, W.G. xvii, 1957, 190-202: Benoit, P. Un adversaire du christianisme au III siècle, Porphyre, R. Bibl. 1947, 543-572.

17. The evidence is Eunapius, V. Soph. V. 1.3, 458 ει̑τα μετ' 'Ανατόλιον Πορφυρίῳ προσθεὶσἑαυτόν. This might simply mean that he had read Porphyry's works but προsτίθημι seems to imply more than this. That Porphyry addressed the treatise πεϱὶ τοῦ γνῶθι sεαυτόν to Iamblichus (cf. Stob. III. 579, 21) implies a reciprocal relationship of some kind even if it does not prove that Iamblichus had ever been a formal pupil of Porphyry. Dillon in his edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' Platonic commentaries adds Stob. 1. 375, 24 ὡs δ'ἐγώ τινων ἀχήχοα Πλατωνιχῶν, οι̑ον Πορφυρίου χαὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν. See his remarks about ἀχούω p. 10 n 4. Dillon gives the impression that Iamblichus did study under Porphyry in Rome. I think we can only say that he might have studied under him.

18. There is no direct evidence that Porphyry maintained or was head of a school like that of Plotinus. On the other hand he would seem to have had pupils although they are mostly just names to us. For a list of pupils, see Bidez, Vie de Porphyre, p. 104f.; cf. also Procl. In Tim. iii. 234, 18, οἱ περὶ Πορφύριον and the same phrase in Iamblichus, Stob. I. 370, 5f. where Plotinus is added, οἱ δὲ περὶ Πορφύριον χαὶ Πλωτῖνον.

19. In Stob. I. 365, de Myst. passim, and esp. in Proclus, In Tim. i. 307, 15, ὁ θεῖοs 'Ιάμβλιχοs πολλὰ μὲν ἀντιγράψαs πρὸs τὴν Πορφυρίου δόξαν: cf. ibid; 24, 12f., ii. 306, 2f.

20. H. Dörrie, Kontroversen um die Seelenwanderung, p. 429.

21. e.g. In Tim. I, 77, 22f.; cf. also David, In Porphyrii Isagogen p. 92, 3 Busse, quoting an oracle, '′Ενθουs ὁ Ιάμβλιχοs, φιλομαθὴs ὁ φοῖνιξ; and further, Bidez, art. cit. p. 37. It would be more correct, perhaps, to call Iamblichus a priest rather than theologian. See Olympiodorus' famous comment In Phaedonem p. 123, 3 ‘′Οτι οἱ μὲν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν προτιμῶσι, ὡs Πορφύριοs χαὶ Πλωτῖνοs χαὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ φιλόσοφοι οἱ δὲτὴν ἱερατιχήν, ὡs 'Ιάμβλιχοs, χαὶ Συριανὸs χαὶ Πρόχλοs χαὶ οἱ ἱερατιχοὶ πάντεs. I retain the term “theologian” in order to express the particular contribution of these late Neoplatonists in presenting an amalgam of religious practice and natural theology (philosophy).

22. e.g. Στοιχείωsσιs θεολογιχή, πεϱὶ τῆs χατὰ Πλάτωνα θεολογίαs.

Bibliography

Ancient Sources Referred to in the Text

Plotinus, For the Enneads the following editions are used:

Enneads i-iii Henry-Schwyzer, Oxford, 1964; iv-v Henry-Schwyzer, Paris and Brussels, 1959; vi Bréhier, Paris, 1936-8.

———, Ed. E. Bréhier 7 vols., Paris 1924-1938.

———, Ed. R. Harder (continued by R. Beutler and W. Theiler), Hamburg, 1956-

———, Ed. P. Henry and H. R. Schwyzer vols. i and ii, Paris and Brussels, 1951-

———, Ed. P. Henry and H. R. Schwyzer vol. i, Oxford, 1964.

———, Ed. and trans. A. H. Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library, 3 vols., London, 1966-

———, Trans. S. MacKenna 3rd. edn. revised by B. S. Page, London, 1962.

Porphyry, De Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae ed. G. Wolff, Berlin 1856 (reprinted Hildesheim, 1962).

———, Ad Gaurum, ed. K. Kalbfleisch, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil-hist. kl. 1895, 33-62.

———, Porphyrii Opuscula Selecta (Histor. Philos. Fragm., Vita Pythagorae, de Antro Nympharum, De Abstinentia, Ad Marcellam) ed. A. Nauck, 2nd Edn., Leipzig, 1886 (reprinted Hildesheim, 1963).

———, Porphyrios ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΚΕΛΛΑN Herausgegeben, übersetzt, eingeleitet und erklärt von Walter Pötscher, Leiden, 1969.

———, Lettera ad Anebo ed. and tr. A. R. Sodano, Neapoli, 1964.

———, Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, ed. B. Mommert, Leipzig, 1907.

———, Porphyrios' “Symmikta Zetemata” ed. H. Dörrie. Zetemata, Monographien zur Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Heft 20, München, 1959.

———, εἰs τὰs 'Αϱιστοτὲλουs χατηγοϱίαs ed. A. Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca vol. iv pars i, Berlin 1887.

———, Anonymus Taurinensis, ed. and trans. P. Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus vol. ii, Paris 1968.

———, Anonymus Taurinensis, ed. W. Kroll, “Ein neuplatonischer Parmenides-commentar in einem Turiner Palimpsest,” Rh.M. [Rhenisches Museum] 47 (1892), 599-627.

Modern Works Quoted in the Texts

Courcelle, P., Les lettres grecques en Occident, Paris, 1948.

Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre, Ghent-Leipzig, 1913 (Reprinted Hildesheim, 1964).

———, “Le philosophe Iamblique et son école,” REG [Revue des Etudes Grecques] 32 (1919) 29-40.

———, “Proclus—περὶ τῆs ἱερατιχῆs τὲχνηs,” Mélanges Cumont, Brussels 1936, p. 85-100.

Chadwick, H., “Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the body,” Harvard Theological Review, 1948, 83-102.

———, The Sentences of Sextus. A Contribution to the History of Early Christian Ethics. Texts and Studies, 2nd Ser. V, Cambridge, 1959.

Dörrie, H., “Das fünffach gestufte Mysterium. Der Aufstieg der Seele bei Porphyrios und Ambrosius.” Festschrift für Theodor Klauser. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsband 1, 1964, 79-82, Münster.

———, “Kontroversen um die Seelenwanderung im Kaiserzeitlichen Platonismus” Hermes 85 (1957) 414-435.

———, ‘“Uπόστασιs, Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte,” Nachrichten der Akad. der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1955, 35-93.

———, “Porphyrios als Mittler zwischen Plotin und Augustin,” Antike und Orient, xiii, 1962, 26-47.

Alfarabi. Introductory Risālah on Logic. Ed. D. M. Dunlop. Islamic Quarterly, III (1956), 225-230.

———. Introductory Sections on Logic. Ed. D. M. Dunlop. Islamic Quarterly, II (1955), 266-274.

———. Eisagoge. Ed. D. M. Dunlop. Islamic Quarterly, III (1956), 118-127.

———. Paraphrase of the Categories of Aristotle. Ed. D. M. Dunlop. Islamic Quarterly, IV (1957), 169-183; V (1959), 21-37.

Aristotle. Organon. Ed. Th. Waitz. Part I. Leipzig, 1844.

———. Categoriae. Ed. L. Minio-Paluello. Oxford, 1956.

———. The Works of Aristotle Translated into English. Ed. W. D. Ross. Vol. I. Oxford, 1928.

———. Catégories. Trans. into French by J. Tricot. Paris, 1936.

———. Metaphysics. Ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford, 1924. 2 vols.

Averroes. Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois Commentariis. Vol. I, Part I. [Jacob Mantino's Latin Translation of the Middle Commentaries on Isagoge and Categories.] Venice, 1562. Reprinted: Frankfurt, 1962.

———. Talkhiç Kitab al-Maqoulat. Ed. M. Bouyges. Beyrouth, 1932.

———. Kol Meleket Higgayon. Riva di Trento, 1559.

———. Middle Commentary on De Generatione. Trans. S. Kurland. Cambridge, 1958.

Avicenna. Al-Shifā'; Isagoge. Ed. A. Ahwani. Cairo, 1952.

———. Al-Shifā; Categories. Ed. M. Khudayri and A. Ahwani. Cairo, 1959.

Munk, S. Mélanges de Philosophie Juive et Arabe. Paris, 1859.

Porphyry. Isagoge. Ed. A. Busse. [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Vol. IV, Pars I.] Berlin, 1887.

———. Introductio [Isagoge] … a Boethio translata. Ed. A. Busse. [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Vol. IV, Pars I.] Berlin, 1887.

———. Isagoge. Trans. into French by J. Tricot. Paris, 1947.

———. In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium. Ed. A. Busse. [Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Vol. IV, Pars I.] Berlin, 1887.

Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Griechen. Vol. II, Part II. 4th ed. Leipzig, 1921. Vol. III, Part I. 5th ed. Leipzig, 1923.