Forthcoming in B. Strobel (ed.), Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den antiken Platon-und Aristoteles Kommentatoren, Berlin/N.York 2014 (De Gruyter) 1 George Karamanolis Why did Porphyry write Aristotelian Commentaries? I. Introduction Porphyry made a name in antiquity for his commentaries on Aristotle. Boethius, who set out to write a number of such commentaries, 1 speaks of him as a great authority in this respect 2 and depends heavily on him. Later Platonists are clearly dependent on Porphyry in their Aristotelian commentaries. 3 This is particularly the case with regard to Aristotle’s Categories. The relevant commentaries of Iamblichus, Dexippus, Ammonius, and Simplicius are significantly indebted to Porphyry both on their overall interpretative stance towards Aristotle’s treatise as well as on several individual points of interpretation, although their authors rarely acknowledge their extensive debts. Their dependence on Porphyry, however, does not amounts to full agreement with his interpretation. In the case of Iamblichus, for instance, we notice a number of critical divergences from Porphyry’s views. 4 Such disagreements, * The paper has benefited from the questions and the remarks of the participants of the conference. I am particularly grateful to Chris Noble for a set of critical remarks that helped me think some issues over and explain more. I am also indebted to Benedikt Strobel for his editorial care and for organizing a superb conference. 1 Boethius, De Interpretatione 2.14.19; see A. Kappelmacher, ‘Der schriftstellerische Plan des Boethius’, Wiener Studien 46 (1928), 215–25, H. Shiel, ‘Boethius’ Commentaries on Aristotle’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed, London 1980, 349–72, S. Ebbessen, ‘Boethius as an Aristotelian Commentator’, ibid. 373–92, and more recently T. Suto, Boethius on Mind, Grammar and Logic, Leiden 2012, esp. 233-236. 2 Porphyry is said to be gravissimus vir auctoritatis (Boethius, De syllogismo categorico 814C-816C; Porphyry fr. 113 Smith). 3 On Boethius’ dependence on Porphyry, see P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, Berlin/N. York 1973, vol. I, 120-130 and more thoroughly S. Ebbessen, ‘Boethius as an Aristotelian Commentator’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed, London 1980, 373-392. 4 See M. Griffin, ‘What has Aristotelian Dialectic to offer a Neoplatonist? A possible sample of Iamblichus at Simplicius On the Categories 12.10-13.12’, International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 6 (2012), 173-185. For an ample discussion of the differences between Porphyry and