In the Neoplatonic schools, introductions to logic, and the Categories in particular, would begin with a list of ten different questions relating to Aristotle's philosophy and his ideal interpreter and student.Footnote 1 Olympiodorus' own introduction to logic (the Prolegomena) follows this pattern; he expands on the remarks of his own teacher Ammonius of Alexandria, and closely models his discussion on his predecessor's work.Footnote 2 In the standard list of ten questions that must be discussed in an introductory philosophy course, the third relates to the subject with which the student is to start his or her philosophical education. Which of logic, ethics, natural science and mathematics is the proper starting-point for philosophy?Footnote 3
Olympiodorus, following Ammonius' footsteps, opts for logic, although he concedes that some role must be given to the formation of character. A soul that is disturbed by the passions would not be able to properly grasp the teachings of philosophy, and so a harmonious character must be attained before any other subject matter can be studied.Footnote 4 But on this reasoning, ethics, and not logic, should be the first subject of study for any beginning philosophers. Olympiodorus recognizes the difficulty, and attempts a resolution, but the relevant passage is textually corrupt (Prol. 9.7-11):
ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ δίκην ἀλόγων ζῴων καὶ ἰδιωτικῷ τρόπῳ κοσμοῦμεν καὶ καλλύνομεν τὰ ἤθη ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ συλλογιστικῆς ἀγωγῆς καὶ ἀποδεικτικῆς μεθόδου, δίκαιον τὴν λογικὴν προηγήσασθαι τῆς τε ἠθικῆς <καὶ τῆς φυσικῆς> καὶ τῆς μαθηματικῆς καὶ τῆς θεολογικῆς.
But since we do not order and beautify our characters in the manner of unreasoning animals and in a vulgar way, but through the syllogistic and demonstrative method of proof, it is right that logic should come before ethics, <natural science>, mathematics and theology.
The insertion of <καὶ τῆς φυσικῆς> follows Busse's suggestion. It is justified by the fact that Olympiodorus has given logic priority over the remaining three disciplines, i.e. ethics, natural science and mathematics. But where does theology fit into this schema? The answer is, I think, ‘nowhere’. Consider the continuation of the passage (Prol. 9.11-12):
ἐν δὲ αὐταῖς ταύταις ταῖς τρισὶ δέον ἐστὶ προηγεῖσθαι τὴν φυσικὴν τῆς μαθηματικῆς καὶ τὴν μαθηματικὴν τῆς θεολογικῆς.
In the case of these three sciences, natural science must come before mathematics, and mathematics before theology.
There is clearly something wrong here. Olympiodorus needs to tell us how ethics, natural science and mathematics are related, given the priority of logic over these last three sciences. Yet, for some reason, ethics has disappeared from the discussion. If we insert <τὴν ἠθικὴν καὶ τῆς φυσικῆς> into the text, we now have four sciences that are related to one another, and not three, so this change will not get us out of the difficulty.
The solution, I submit, depends on realizing that both instances of τῆς θεολογικῆς are later intrusions into the text.Footnote 5 A less than careful reader of Olympiodorus' text would have assumed that the philosopher is presenting a hierarchy of the sciences, and that ‘theology’ ought to be included as the highest term. Such a hierarchy is presented, for example, at Prol. 9.32-6, where Olympiodorus lists the degrees of philosophy:
φαμὲν τοίνυν ὅτι πέντε τινὰ καθέστηκεν τὰ πρὸς τὸ τέλος ἡμᾶς ἀπάγοντα τῆς φιλοσοφίας, οἷον λογική, φυσική, ἠθική, μαθηματική, θεολογική. καὶ ἔστιν ἀρχὴ μὲν ἡ λογική, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἠθική, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἠθικὴν ἡ φυσική, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην ἡ μαθηματική, μετὰ δὲ τὴν μαθηματικὴν ἡ θεολογία.
Now we say that that there are five disciplines that lead us towards the summit of philosophy, namely logic, physics, ethics, mathematics and theology. Logic is the starting point, and after it comes ethics, after ethics physics, after physics mathematics, and after mathematics theology.
Theology here stands at the apex of philosophy, logic at its beginning. But we should not read this hierarchy back into our problematic passage (Prol. 9.7-11). Our author does not even consider the implausible thought that the study of theology should be placed at the beginning of the philosophical curriculum; for this reason, he mentions only ethics, natural science and mathematics as viable candidates.Footnote 6 We would thus expect him to consider the order of these four sciences, and to leave theology out of the question.
Thus, if one restores the whole passage to its original form, before the ill-advised intervention of a copyist or editor distorted its proper meaning, it will read as follows (text in curly brackets {} is to be deleted):
ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ δίκην ἀλόγων ζῴων καὶ ἰδιωτικῷ τρόπῳ κοσμοῦμεν καὶ καλλύνομεν τὰ ἤθη ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ διὰ συλλογιστικῆς ἀγωγῆς καὶ ἀποδεικτικῆς μεθόδου, δίκαιον τὴν λογικὴν προηγήσασθαι τῆς τε ἠθικῆς <καὶ τῆς φυσικῆς> καὶ τῆς μαθηματικῆς {καὶ τῆς θεολογικῆς}. ἐν δὲ αὐταῖς ταύταις ταῖς τρισὶ δέον ἐστὶ προηγεῖσθαι <τὴν ἠθικὴν τῆς φυσικῆς> καὶ τὴν φυσικὴν τῆς μαθηματικῆς {καὶ τὴν μαθηματικὴν τῆς θεολογικῆς}.
This small textual matter may give us an insight into what Olympiodorus' ancient readers were expecting to find in his works, namely statements concerning the supremacy of theology.Footnote 7 When faced with the puzzling absence of such statements in the passage discussed above, they were apparently prepared to emend the text in light of their preconception of what the author ought to say.Footnote 8 But, as I hope to have shown, there can be too much even of theology.
