The long period of "exegetical" philosophy is linked to a sociological phenomenon: the existence of philosophical schools, in which the thought, life-style, and writings of a master were religiously preserved. This phenomenon seems already to have existed among the Presocratics, but we are best able to observe it from Plato on.
Plato had given his Academy an extremely solid material and juridical organization . The leaders of the school succeeded one another 1 in a continuous chain until Justinian's closure of the school of Athens in 529, and throughout this entire period, scholarly activity was carried out according to fixed, trnd itionnl methods. The other great schools, whether Peripatetic, Stoic, or Epicurean, were organized along similar lines. The writings of each Kl'hool'K foumler KcrVl'U 1111 the hnKiN for itK instruction and it
,
was determined
72
Method
in which order the student should read these writings, in order to acquire the best possible education. We still have some of the writings in which Platonists gave advice on the order in which Plato's dialogues were to be read. Thus, we can tell that from the fourth century BC on, Aristotle's logical writings were arranged in a definite scholastic order - the Organon which would not
-
change until modem times.
Instruction consisted above all in commenting on Plato and Aristotle, using previous commentaries and adding a new interpretation here and there. In this regard, we have an interesting testimony from Porphyry about the lessons of Plotinus:
During his classes, he used to have the commentaries read, perhaps of Severus or of Cronius or of Numenius or Gaius or Atticus, or of Peripatetics like Aspasius, Alexander, or whichever other came to hand.
Yet he never repeated anything from these commentaries word for word, restricted himself to these readings alone. Rather, he himself used to give a general explanation [theoria] of (Plato's or Aristotle's) text in his own personal way, which was different from current opinion. In his investigations, moreover, he brought to bear the spirit of Ammonius.2
The first commentator on Plato's Timaeus seems to have been Crantor (ca. 330 BC), and Platonic commentators continued their activity until the end of the Athenian school in the sixth century. From this point, the tradition was continued, both in the Arab world and in the Latin West, up until the Renaissance (Marsilio Ficino). As for Aristotle, he was first commented upon by Andronicus of Rhodes (first century BC), who was the first in a series extending through the end of the Renaissance, in the person of Zabardella. In addition to commentaries slriclo sensu, the exegetical activity of the philosophical schools took the form of dogmatic treatises, devoted to particular points of exegesis, and manuals designed to serve as introductions to the study of the masters. Moreover, the end of antiquity witnessed the appearance of other authorities, in addition to Plato and Aristotle: the authority of Revelations.
For Christians and Jews, this meant primarily the Bible, and for pagan philosophers, the Chaldaean Oracles. Both Judaism and Christianity sought to present themselves to the Greek world as philosophies; they thus developed, in the persons of Philo and Origen respectively, a biblical exegesis analogous to the traditional pagan exegesis of Plato. For their part, such pagan commentators on the Clzaldaean Oracles as Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus did their best to show that the teachings of the "gods" coincided with Plato's doctrines. If we understand by "theology" the rational exegesis of n sacred text, then we can say that during this period philosophy was trim11formed into theology, and it was to stay that way throughoul l hc M idLllc Al(cN. From 1 his perspec1ive, medicvnl Schol11111icH 11ppe11r11 UN t h�· l1111k11 I rnnt 11111111 ion of the
Philosophy, Exegesis, and Creative Mistakes
73
ancient exegetical tradition. M.-D. Chenu3 has defined the specific character of Scholastics as "dialectics applied to the comprehension 9f a text: either a continuous text, in which case the goal is the writing of a commentary, or of a series of texts, which are selected to serve as bases and proofs for a given speculative construction. " 4 For this scholar, Scholastics is "a rational form of thought which is consciously and deliberately elaborated, taking as its starting-point a text considered as authoritative." 5 If we accent these definitions, we can assert that Scholastic thought did nothing other than adopt thought-processes already traditionally used in the majority of ancient philosophical schools. Conversely, we could also say that these schools were already engaging in Scholastic thought. Throughout the Middle Ages, instruction consisted essentially in textual commentary, whether of the Bible, Aristotle, Boethius, or the Sentences of Peter Lombard.
These facts have important consequences for the general interpretation of the history of philosophy, especially during its pre-Cartesian period. Insofar as philosophy was considered exegesis, the search for truth, throughout this period, was confounded with the search for the meaning of "authentic" texts; that is, of those texts considered as authoritative. Truth was contained within these text.�; it was the property of their authors, as it was also the property of those groups who recognized the authority of these authors, and who were consequently the "heirs" of this original truth.
Philosophical problems were expressed in exegetical terms. For example, we find Plotinus writing the following in the course of his investigation of the problem of eviclass="underline" "We must try to find out in what sense Plato says that evils shall not pass away, and that their existence is necessary." 6 Typically, the rest of Plotinus' inquiry consists in a discussion of the terminology used by Plato in his Theaelelus.7 The famous battle over universals, which divided the Middle Ages, was based on the exegesis of a single phrase from Porphyry's lsagoge. It would be possible to make a list of all the texts which, upon being discussed, formed the basis of all ancient and medieval problematics. The list would not be long: it might contain a few passages from Plato (especially the Ti111aeus), Aristotle, Boethius, the first chapter of Genesis, and the prologue to the Gospel of John.
The fact that authentic texts raise questions is not due to any inherent defect. On the contrary: their obscurity, it was thought, was only the result of a technique used by a master, who wished to hint at a great many things at once, and therefore enclosed the "truth" in his formulations. Any potential m�aning, as long as it was coherent with what was considered to be the master's doctrine, was consequently held to be true. Charles Thurot's remark8
nbout the commentators on the grammarian Priscianus is applicable to all the philosopher cxegctcs:
I n their explanations of a text, the glossators did not seek to understand t hl' 11uthur111 1 huul(lu ; hut r111 hcr to tc11ch l he doctrine itself which they
74
Method
supposed to be contained in it. What they termed an "authentic" author could neither be mistaken, nor contradict himself, nor develop his arguments poorly, nor disagree with any other authentic author. The most forced exegesis was used in order to accommodate the letter of the text to what was considered the truth.9