‘David’ is named in certain manuscripts of three works ofphilosophy as their author: a set of introductory lectures onphilosophy, a commentary on Porphyry’sIntroduction, and acommentary on Aristotle’sCategories that nowadays isattributed to Elias. The name is commonly taken, on the basis ofevidence internal to these works, to refer to a Christian Neoplatonicphilosopher and commentator who presumably worked in Alexandria in themiddle or the second half of the 6th century, or even later. This‘David’ is also commonly identified with David theInvincible, an important figure in the early history of Armenianphilosophy, but biographical identifications of this kind areextremely precarious.

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Extant writings
• 3. The Problem of Authorship
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries

1. Introduction

Byzantium in the 6th century witnessed at once a last flourishing anda dramatic decline of the tradition of composing philosophicalcommentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle, a tradition whichbegan in earnest in the 2nd century CE. David, together with thealmost equally enigmatic Elias, and Stephanus, belong to the final stageof this tradition that reached its pinnacle in the 6th century’s firsthalf with the great commentaries of Ammonius Hermeiou and his pupilsSimplicius and John Philoponus in the East, and with Boethius in theWest. If we discount a commentary on theCategories which themanuscript tradition uniformly attributes to ‘David’ butwhich, in style and doctrine, is more closely related to worksattributed to ‘Elias’, there remain two texts we have toconsider as his works, one entitled ‘Prolegomenaphilosophiae’ (‘Introduction to Philosophy’), theother lectures on Porphyry’s ‘Introduction to Aristotle’sCategories’. The author of these texts refers toOlympiodorus four times; he may have been his pupil. Olympiodorus, whowas a pagan, held the chair of philosophy at Alexandria as a successorto Ammonius and Eutocius for well over 30 years, from around 530 toabout 565. These are the only pieces of evidence that provide us witha rough estimate as to the time of composition.

2. Extant Writings

Both the ‘Introduction to Philosophy’ and the commentaryon Porphyry arose out of the author’s teaching activity, presumably atthe school of Alexandria. The text is divided throughout into more orless self-contained ‘lectures,’ called‘praxeis,’ a formal structure that was first used byOlympiodorus. The ‘Introduction to Philosophy’ consists of24 such lectures. In fact, the texts we have state in their title thatthey were written down “from the voice” of David; this means thatwhile the teacher lectured, a student would take copious notes thatwere then copied out and circulated, a practice that was not uncommonin the Alexandrian school.

Giving introductory lectures to beginners in philosophy was astandard part of higher education at Alexandria; Ammonius andOlympiodorus taught such lectures, and as time went on, the ritualbecame more and more elaborate: Elias’ ‘Introduction toPhilosophy’ is about twice as long as that of Ammonius, David’sabout four times as long. As today, a lecture of this kind offered anoccasion to inspire students with a love for philosophy. WhereasAmmonius’ lectures were pretty dry and to the point, Elias wore thecloak of an entertaining intellectual, and David comes across as aserious man passionate about philosophy. Here are the opening linesof his first lecture:

Those who passionately love philosophical arguments and have tastedthe pleasure that derives from them with their fingertips, having saidfarewell to all of life’s concerns, are evidently pulled towards thesearguments by some kind of madness and in their souls evoke the love forthem by the knowledge of the things that are. As we shall learn withgod’s help, philosophy is just this knowledge. Now, since wise loveand great desire have driven us into this struggle, let us tackle thedivine struggle of philosophy without regarding the task before us asdifficult; rather in looking towards the end of the divine promise ofphilosophy, we shall regard any effort as inferior and secondary toit.

Somewhat surprising is that these words are generally supposed tohave been uttered by a Christian. Although it is most certainly wrongto reckon with a clear-cut dichotomy between the intellectual commitmentsand sentiments of ‘Christians’ and ‘pagans’ inlate antiquity, it is striking that David’s text gives us noindication that the author was indeed a Christian. On the contrary,there are many features that belong to the old world of paganpolytheism: the world is eternal, the soul immortal, the celestialbodies divine, and we hear of irrational avenging spirits andlong-living nymphs. Moreover, ‘David’ seems to proselytizeamong his students, trying to turn their minds and souls towards paganGreek philosophy understood as a commitment to a certain way oflife. For example, he makes heavy weather of the Platonic idea thatphilosophy is an assimilation to god and claims at one point that “thecomplete philosopher is similar to god because he is characterized bythe same things as god, in particular universal knowledge” (p. 17,1ff). He finishes his lectures with a resounding exhortation thatphilosophy “adorns human souls and transfers the soul from the dimcorporeality of this life to what is divine and immaterial”, citing aline from Homer in support (p. 79, 2–5).

In the sequence of courses, the ‘Prolegomena’ werefollowed by lectures on Porphyry’s seminal ‘Introduction toAristotle’sCategories’. Porphyry, who started theneoplatonic tradition of commentaries on Aristotle at the end of the3rd century, was once approached by a Roman senator, Chrysarius, whohad great difficulty understanding Aristotle’s‘Categories’; Elias and David tell their studentshow Porphyry seized the opportunity to write what should turn out tobe an extremely popular and influential text, the so-called‘Isagogê’ (‘Introduction’). The textdeals with a detailed explanation of the five logical-ontological keyconcepts: genus, species, differentia, essential attribute andaccidental attribute.

David explains that an understanding of this text is in fact not onlyrequisite for an understanding of Aristotle’sCategories, butserves also as a preparation for philosophy in general — in additionto providing a training in dialectical method (87, 2–5). His view isthat the terms Porphyry explicates are the building blocks of any kindof philosophical discourse.

In the two texts we still possess, the author also refers to his ownexegesis of theCategories, theDe interpretatione,and thePhysics, but these commentaries have not beendiscovered. Whether or not David lectured also on Plato we do notknow.

3. The Problem of Authorship

We do not know whether the texts transmitted under the name of‘David’ were written at a time when Olympiodorus was stillalive and active, or whether they date to the last decades of the 6th,beginning of the 7th, centuries. The inability precisely to date thesetexts compounds the difficulties that surround the attribution to aphilosopher named ‘David’. These difficulties arethreefold:

First, in the Greek tradition, we nowhere find evidence of anAlexandrian philosopher named David; neither the Suda nor Hesychiusnor Photius nor anyone else seems to know of any such person. Second,the texts we have were evidently widely distributed and read, and anabbreviated and simplified version of the ‘Prolegomena toPhilosophy’ was translated at some point into Armenian (ourearliest manuscripts date from the 14th century). The Armenian versionwas given a new title and attributed to ‘David, theInvincible’, who, according to the Armenian tradition, however,was a theologian of the 5th century. It is impossible to believe thatthe Armenian theologian and the (Alexandrian) philosopher a centurylater were one and the same. There is also no reason to believe thatthe latter David was of Armenian origin. Here, the cross-fertilizationof intellectual traditions has given rise to a great deal of confusionwhich, in the absence of earlier manuscripts, is quite impossible toclear up completely.

The third difficulty concerns the Greek manuscript tradition. Allof our older manuscripts (from the 11th century onwards) are eitheranonymous or attribute their contents to (1) Elias, or to (2) the saint Davidof Thessaloniki (who died around 530), or (3) to the 10th centuryByzantine scholar Nicetas of Paphlagonia who called himself by themonastic name ‘David’. Only the 16th century manuscriptsand one from the 14th century name ‘David’ at all asauthor, and it seems imprudent to put too much, if any, weight on thisattribution. It is quite possible that the texts we have now under thename of David first circulated as anonymous lecture notes and wereonly later attributed to an author with a good Christian name so as toenhance its importance and authority among Christian readers.

Bibliography

• Aversatjan, S., 1981. “David l’Invincible et sa doctrinephilosophique,”Revue des étudesarméniennes, 15: 33–43.
• Benakis, L., 1983. “David der Armenier in den Werken derbyzantinischen Kommentatoren des Aristoteles,” in G.A. Brutian(ed.),David the Invincible: The Great Philosopher of AncientArmenia, Yerevan, 558–70.
• Busse, A., 1892. “Die neuplatonischen Ausleger der Isagogedes Porphyrius,”Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Programme desFriedrichs-Gymnasiums, Berlin.
• –––, 1904.Davidis Prolegomena et in Porphyrii Isagogencommentarium, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18.2,Berlin.
• Contin, B., 2014.Le definizioni e divisioni della filosofia /Davide l’invincibile, introduzione, traduzione e note,Machinaphilosophorum 30, Palermo.
• Kendall, B. and Thompson, R.W., 1983.Definitions and Division ofPhilosophy by David the Invincible Philosopher, Chico, CA.
• Khostikian, M., 1907.David der Philosoph, Leipzig.
• Kroll, W., 1901. “David,” inPaulysReal-Encyclopädie der Classischen Alterumswissenschaft, 4:2232–3.
• Mahé, J.-P., 1990. “David l’Invincible dans latradition arménienne,” in I. Hadot,Simpliciuscommentaire sur les catégories, Leiden,189–207.
• Muradyan, G., 2015.David the Invincible:Commentaryon Porphyry’s Isagoge (old Armenian text with the Greek original,an English translation, introduction and notes),PhilosophiaAntiqua 137, Leiden.
• Neumann, C.F., 1829. “Mémoire sur la vie et desouvrages de David, philosophe arménien du Ve siècle denotre ère,”Nouveau journal asiatique, 3: 49–86and 97–157.
• Praechter, K., 1908. “Review of Busse(1904),”Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 170,Göttingen.
• –––, 1911. “DavidProlegomena,”Hermes, 45: 316f.
• Rose, V., 1887.Leben des Heiligen David von Salonika, griechischnach der einzigen bisher aufgefundenen Handschrift herausgegeben (mitBeziehung auf David Invictus Philosophus), Berlin.
• Sanjian, A.K. (ed.), 1986.David Anhagt’: the‘Invincible’ Philosopher (Studies in Near EasternCulture and Society 7), Atlanta: Scholars Press.
• Sorabji, R.R.K. (ed.), 1990.Aristotle Transformed,London.
• Thorossian, H., 1951.Histoire de la litteraturearménienne, Paris, 96ff.
• Topchyan, A., 2010.David the Invincible:Commentaryon Aristotle’s Prior Analytics (critical Old Armenian text withan English translation, introduction, and notes),PhilosophiaAntiqua 122, Leiden.
• Westerink, L.G., 1962.Anonymous Prolegomena to PlatonicPhilosophy, Amsterdam.
• –––, 1967.Pseudo-Elias (Pseudo-David)Lectures on Porphyry’s Isagoge, Amsterdam.
• –––, 1990. “The Alexandrian commentators and theintroductions to their commentaries,” in Sorabji 1990, 325–48.
• Wildberg, C., 1990. “Three Neoplatonic Introductions toPhilosophy: Ammonius, David, Elias,”Hermathena, 149:33–51.

Academic Tools

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entries

Ammonius |Aristotle |Elias |Olympiodorus |Philoponus |Porphyry