| Title | Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 9 |
| Pages | 25-131 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius’ com- mentary on Aristotle’s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23–58. Its aim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’ text that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2UHM1mtpgYGOwNe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1480,"authors_free":[{"id":2561,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2600,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"},"abstract":"This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius\u2019 com-\r\nmentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23\u201358. Its\r\naim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019\r\ntext that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and\r\nhistorical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier\r\nGreek astronomical theorizing. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2UHM1mtpgYGOwNe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"25-131"}},"sort":[2008]}
| Title | Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 23-58 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius’ commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle’s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius’ remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. Λ 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius’ account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. Λ 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes. Given the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–11. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius’ account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius’ commentary on 2.10–11 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12. The annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Cxa6aZwE2WNkdBB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1479,"authors_free":[{"id":2560,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2601,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"},"abstract":"If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius\u2019 commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle\u2019s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius\u2019 remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12\r\ndo not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. \u039b 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius\u2019 account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. \u039b 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes.\r\nGiven the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201311. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius\u2019 account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius\u2019 commentary on 2.10\u201311 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.\r\nThe annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. \r\n[introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Cxa6aZwE2WNkdBB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"23-58"}},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | Perspectives on Science |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 155–167 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| n earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro- duced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later writers in antiquity through a process of veriªcation. In this paper, I shall apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius’ interpretation of Aristotle’s remarks in Meta . 8, which is the primary point of departure for the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I ªrst sketch several lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius’ interpretation should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then, after showing that there is a fairly well deªned range of readings of Aris- totle’s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in the 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle’s report about the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius’ interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of early Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lJ4EoQlGmsAbp75 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1073","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1073,"authors_free":[{"id":1627,"entry_id":1073,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","free_first_name":"Alan C. ","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "},"abstract":"n earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro-\r\nduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take\r\npains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later\r\nwriters in antiquity through a process of veri\u00aacation. In this paper, I shall\r\napply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nof Aristotle\u2019s remarks in Meta \u0001. 8, which is the primary point of departure\r\nfor the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I \u00aarst sketch several\r\nlines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nshould not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena\r\nunknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then,\r\nafter showing that there is a fairly well de\u00aaned range of readings of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in\r\nthe 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle\u2019s report about\r\nthe Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius\u2019\r\ninterpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of\r\nearly Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJ4EoQlGmsAbp75","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1073,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013167"}},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | Perspectives on Science |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 155–167 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
n earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro- duced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take pains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later writers in antiquity through a process of veriªcation. In this paper, I shall apply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius’ interpretation of Aristotle’s remarks in Meta . 8, which is the primary point of departure for the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I ªrst sketch several lines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius’ interpretation should not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena unknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then, after showing that there is a fairly well deªned range of readings of Aris- totle’s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in the 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle’s report about the Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius’ interpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of early Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/lJ4EoQlGmsAbp75 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1073","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1073,"authors_free":[{"id":1627,"entry_id":1073,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","free_first_name":"Alan C. ","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory ","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "},"abstract":"n earlier work, Bernard R. Goldstein and the present author have intro-\r\nduced a procedural rule for historical inquiry, which requires that one take\r\npains to establish the credibility of any citation of ancient thought by later\r\nwriters in antiquity through a process of veri\u00aacation. In this paper, I shall\r\napply what I call the Rule of Ancient Citations to Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nof Aristotle\u2019s remarks in Meta \u0001. 8, which is the primary point of departure\r\nfor the modern understanding of Greek planetary theory. I \u00aarst sketch several\r\nlines of argument that lead me to conclude that Simplicius\u2019 interpretation\r\nshould not be accepted because it assumes a concern with planetary phenomena\r\nunknown to the Greeks before the late 2nd and early 1st centuries bc. Then,\r\nafter showing that there is a fairly well de\u00aaned range of readings of Aris-\r\ntotle\u2019s remarks more in keeping with what we actually know of astronomy in\r\nthe 5th and 4th centuries bc, I conclude that neither Aristotle\u2019s report about\r\nthe Eudoxan and Callippan accounts of the celestial motions nor Simplicius\u2019\r\ninterpretation of this report is a good starting point for our understanding of\r\nearly Greek planetary theory. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lJ4EoQlGmsAbp75","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1073,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"10","issue":"2","pages":"155\u2013167"}},"sort":["Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory "]}
| Title | Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 23-58 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius’ commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle’s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius’ remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. Λ 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius’ account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. Λ 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes. Given the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–11. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius’ account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius’ commentary on 2.10–11 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12. The annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Cxa6aZwE2WNkdBB |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1479","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1479,"authors_free":[{"id":2560,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2601,"entry_id":1479,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"},"abstract":"If there is a single text that has proven to be the bedrock for the modern understanding of early Greek astronomy, it is Simplicius\u2019 commentary on book 2 chapter 12 of Aristotle\u2019s treatise, De caelo. Simplicius\u2019 remarks, which are effectively an elaboration of what he supposes Aristotle to mean in Meta. \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12\r\ndo not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Meta. \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. That scholars today persist in reading Meta. \u039b 8 and other early texts as indicating knowledge of the planetary stations and retrogradations is a puzzle. One only wishes, when these scholars have elaborated their interpretations of Meta. \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern the planetary motions, that they not stop here as if their work as historians were done. Obviously, it will not be enough if they simply adduce relevant testimonia by later ancient writers. Not only are these testimonia few in number and date to a time after the characteristic planetary motions were duly understood, they typically prove on critical examination to be either ambiguous or anachronistic in the same way as Simplicius\u2019 account is. Consequently, any appeal to such testimonia without critical argument in defense of their historical validity is pointless. Indeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Meta. \u039b 8 and the other early texts must be read in this way. For, absent such proof, all one has is the fallacy of imputing to a writer the perceived consequences of what he writes.\r\nGiven the exigencies of publication, this annotated translation will come in two parts. The first, presented here, is devoted to Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201311. These chapters in the De caelo raise stock issues in astronomy; and it is valuable, I think, for readers interested in Simplicius\u2019 account of planetary theory in 2.12 to see and assess just how he deals with them. Indeed, not only does Simplicius\u2019 commentary on 2.10\u201311 show him drawing on a tradition of technical writing for novices and philosophers that goes back to Geminus and Cleomedes, it also shows him going astray on fundamental points in elementary mathematics. And this is surely important for our interpretation of his commentary on 2.12.\r\nThe annotation itself is, as I have said, intended to assist the reader with information that may be needed to make sense of the text. My main aim is to allow access to Simplicius that is as little encumbered by my interpretative intrusion as is feasible, since my hope in this publication is that the reader will confront Simplicius for himself by himself, so far as this is possible in a translation. \r\n[introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Cxa6aZwE2WNkdBB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1479,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"4","issue":"","pages":"23-58"}},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 1"]}
| Title | Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2008 |
| Journal | SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 9 |
| Pages | 25-131 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Bowen, Alan C. , Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius’ com- mentary on Aristotle’s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23–58. Its aim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’ text that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2UHM1mtpgYGOwNe |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"1480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1480,"authors_free":[{"id":2561,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":16,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Bowen, Alan C.","free_first_name":"Alan C.","free_last_name":"Bowen","norm_person":{"id":16,"first_name":"Bowen C.","last_name":"Bowen","full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140052720","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2600,"entry_id":1480,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"},"abstract":"This completes my translation of the narrowly astronomical sections of Simplicius\u2019 com-\r\nmentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo that first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003) 23\u201358. Its\r\naim, as before, is to supply the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019\r\ntext that will facilitate addressing the critical questions of the nature, construction, and\r\nhistorical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it bears on the history of earlier\r\nGreek astronomical theorizing. [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2UHM1mtpgYGOwNe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":16,"full_name":"Bowen, Alan C. ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"SCIAMVS: Sources and Commentaries in Exact Sciences","volume":"9","issue":"","pages":"25-131"}},"sort":["Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle, De Caelo 2.10-12: An Annotated Translation, Part 2"]}