Chapter 9 of Aristotle's "On Interpretation" deals with determinism, and here the two influential commentaries of Ammonius and Boethius have been published together. These are crucial works, for Ammonuis' commentary influenced the Islamic Middle Ages, while that of Boethius was of equal importance to medieval Latin-speaking philosophers. It was once argued that Boethius was influenced by Ammonius, and this work aims to show that this was clearly not the case. Ammonius draws on the fourth- and fifth-century Neoplatonists Iamblichus, Syrianus and Proclus. He arranges his argument around three major deterministic arguments and is our main source for one of them, the Reaper argument. Boethius, on the other hand, draws on controversies from 300 years earlier between Stoics and Aristotelians as recorded by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry.

Aristotle's "On Interpretation", a centrepiece of his logic, studies the relationship between conflicting pairs of statements. The first eight chapters, studied here, explain what statements are; they start from their basic components, the words, and work up to the character of opposed affirmations and negations. The 15,000 pages of the ancient Greek commentators on Aristotle, written mainly between 200 and 500 AD, constitute the largest corpus of extant Greek philosophical writing not translated into English or other European languages. This new series of translations, planned in 60 volumes, fills an important gap in the history of European thought.

This book is about determinisism. It contains the two most important commentaries on the determinists' sea battle argument, and on other deterministic arguments besides. It includes the earliest full exposition of the Reaper argument for determinism, and a discussion of whether there can be changeless knowledge of the passage of time. It also contains the two fullest expositions of the idea that it is not truth, but only definite truth, that would imply determinism. Ammonius and Boethius both wrote commentaries on Aristotle's On Interpretation and on its ninth chapter, where Aristotle discusses the sea battle. Their comments are crucial, for Ammonius' commentary influenced the Islamic the Islamic Middle Ages, while that of Boethius was of equal importance to medieval Latin-speaking philosophers. It was once argued that Boethius was influenced by Ammonius, but these translations are published together in this volume to enable the reader to see clearly that this was not the case. Ammonius draws on the fourth- and fifth-century Neoplatonists lamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus. He arranges his argument around three major deterministic arguments and is our main source for one of them, the Reaper argument, which has hitherto received insufficient attention. Boethius, on the other hand, draws on controversies from 300 years earlier between Stoics and Aristotelians as recorded by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry. This volume is essential reading for all those with an interest in the history of determinism. Ammonius' commentary on the first eight chapters of Aristotle's On Interpretation has appeared in a previously published volume in this series, translated by David Blank.

Aristotle's "On Interpretation," the centrepiece of his logic, examines the relationship between conflicting pairs of statements. The first eight chapters, analysed in this volume, explain what statements are, starting from their basic components - the words - and working up to the character of opposed affirmations and negations. Ammonius, who in his capacity as Professor at Alexandria from around AD 470 taught almost all the great sixth-century commentators, left just this one commentary in his own name, although his lectures on other works of Aristotle have been written up by his pupils, who included Philoponus and Asclepius. His ideas on Aristotle's "On Interpretation "were derived from his own teacher, Proclus, and partly from the great lost commentary of Porphyry. The two most important extant commentaries on "On Interpretation," of which this is one (the other being by Boethius) both draw on Porphyry's work, which can be to some extent reconstructed for them