| Title | Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 294-301 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle’s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius’ work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle’s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy’s system for Aristotle’s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius’ “preference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses” (p. 51) and questions the reason for this. For Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work—whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself—the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus. In Bowen’s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius’ In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius’ struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim: “The great digression at the end of Simplicius’ In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle’s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether” (p. 27). Even though Philoponus’ rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius’ real target. Philoponus’ attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions. Bowen’s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus’ objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus’ main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees—an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion. Bowen argues that Philoponus’ criticism “brings to the fore two points against Aristotle,” namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, “in which he sides with Philoponus.” The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus’ blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen’s book, In Defense of a Heresy. This reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius’ statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12—especially in the section labeled “digression”—to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, “The digression is the apologia in full” (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the “digression” is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus’ objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias. Only after addressing these objections, “long after Philoponus’ objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (παρέκβασις) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius’ attempt to deal with Philoponus” (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1410,"authors_free":[{"id":2205,"entry_id":1410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"D'Ancona Costa","free_last_name":"Cristina","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius\u2019 work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle\u2019s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy\u2019s system for Aristotle\u2019s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius\u2019 \u201cpreference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses\u201d (p. 51) and questions the reason for this.\r\n\r\nFor Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work\u2014whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself\u2014the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus.\r\n\r\nIn Bowen\u2019s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius\u2019 struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim:\r\n\r\n \u201cThe great digression at the end of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle\u2019s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether\u201d (p. 27).\r\n\r\nEven though Philoponus\u2019 rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius\u2019 real target. Philoponus\u2019 attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions.\r\n\r\nBowen\u2019s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus\u2019 objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus\u2019 main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees\u2014an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion.\r\n\r\nBowen argues that Philoponus\u2019 criticism \u201cbrings to the fore two points against Aristotle,\u201d namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, \u201cin which he sides with Philoponus.\u201d The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus\u2019 blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen\u2019s book, In Defense of a Heresy.\r\n\r\nThis reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius\u2019 statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12\u2014especially in the section labeled \u201cdigression\u201d\u2014to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, \u201cThe digression is the apologia in full\u201d (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the \u201cdigression\u201d is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus\u2019 objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nOnly after addressing these objections, \u201clong after Philoponus\u2019 objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius\u2019 attempt to deal with Philoponus\u201d (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"294-301"}},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Journal | Studia graeco-arabica |
| Volume | 6 |
| Pages | 294-301 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle’s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius’ work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle’s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy’s system for Aristotle’s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius’ “preference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses” (p. 51) and questions the reason for this.
For Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work—whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself—the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus.
In Bowen’s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius’ In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius’ struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim:
“The great digression at the end of Simplicius’ In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle’s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether” (p. 27).
Even though Philoponus’ rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius’ real target. Philoponus’ attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions.
Bowen’s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus’ objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus’ main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees—an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion.
Bowen argues that Philoponus’ criticism “brings to the fore two points against Aristotle,” namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, “in which he sides with Philoponus.” The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus’ blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen’s book, In Defense of a Heresy.
This reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius’ statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12—especially in the section labeled “digression”—to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, “The digression is the apologia in full” (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the “digression” is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus’ objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.
Only after addressing these objections, “long after Philoponus’ objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (παρέκβασις) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius’ attempt to deal with Philoponus” (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1410","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1410,"authors_free":[{"id":2205,"entry_id":1410,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"D'Ancona Costa","free_last_name":"Cristina","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy","main_title":{"title":"Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"},"abstract":"Within the history of the reception of ancient cosmology in later ages, Aristotle\u2019s De Caelo plays an important role. Simplicius\u2019 work on the planets and their motions is devoted to a specific point in the late antique exegesis of this Aristotelian treatise, namely the problem of planetary motions and the solution to it provided by Simplicius (d. 555 AD) in his commentary on De Caelo. Planetary motions indeed pose a problem for him: while throughout his commentary he is committed to showing that Aristotle\u2019s description of the heavens is the correct one, on this particular issue he substitutes Ptolemy\u2019s system for Aristotle\u2019s (pp. 84-86). Bowen focuses on Simplicius\u2019 \u201cpreference for post-Aristotelian planetary hypotheses\u201d (p. 51) and questions the reason for this.\r\n\r\nFor Bowen, the answer lies in the well-known debate on the nature of the heavens that arose in the first half of the 6th century between Simplicius and Philoponus. Challenged by Philoponus in a lost work\u2014whose main, though not exclusive, source of knowledge for us is Simplicius himself\u2014the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity and divinity of the heavens was defended by Simplicius in his commentary on De Caelo, where he also directed harsh criticisms at Philoponus.\r\n\r\nIn Bowen\u2019s book, four introductory chapters (pp. 27-93) precede the translation of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo II, 10-12 (= pp. 470.29-510.35 Heiberg), followed by a series of comments on selected topics (pp. 201-98). Figures and tables are provided at the end of the introduction (pp. 22-25) and between the translation and the comments (pp. 181-97). Bowen frames much of his discussion against the backdrop of Simplicius\u2019 struggle against Philoponus. Chapter One opens with the claim:\r\n\r\n \u201cThe great digression at the end of Simplicius\u2019 In De Caelo 2.12 [492.25-510.35] is an apologia precipitated by Philoponus, the renegade Platonist, and his attack on Aristotle\u2019s arguments for a fifth simple body, aether\u201d (p. 27).\r\n\r\nEven though Philoponus\u2019 rejection of Aristotelian cosmology is not explicitly mentioned in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12, Bowen considers it Simplicius\u2019 real target. Philoponus\u2019 attack on the theory of the aether and its movement lies in the background of what, at first glance, appears to be a highly specialized discussion of the difficulties in the homocentric theory and an excursus on their solutions.\r\n\r\nBowen\u2019s interpretation centers on the idea that Simplicius was well aware of the limitations of the homocentric theory. Faced with Philoponus\u2019 objections, he sought a solution that was compatible with his own assumption of the circular and, consequently, eternal motion of the heavens. Philoponus\u2019 main objection is as follows: if it were true that the entire cosmos rotates about its center, then the planets should not exhibit rotations about their own axes, nor should they have apogees and perigees\u2014an argument that, according to Bowen, Simplicius could only agree with. In fact, this was precisely the reason he sided with Ptolemy. However, Simplicius could by no means endorse the general conclusion Philoponus drew from this, namely that there is no aether endowed with circular, eternal motion.\r\n\r\nBowen argues that Philoponus\u2019 criticism \u201cbrings to the fore two points against Aristotle,\u201d namely the rotation of the planets about their axes and their apogees and perigees, \u201cin which he sides with Philoponus.\u201d The danger here is heresy: Simplicius is now obliged to show that his agreement with Philoponus does not lead to Philoponus\u2019 blasphemous conclusion (p. 28), hence the subtitle of Bowen\u2019s book, In Defense of a Heresy.\r\n\r\nThis reconstruction hinges on linking Simplicius\u2019 statements in his commentary on De Caelo II, 10-12\u2014especially in the section labeled \u201cdigression\u201d\u2014to Philoponus. As Bowen puts it, \u201cThe digression is the apologia in full\u201d (p. 64). As noted earlier, this long passage, which concludes Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De Caelo II, 12, addresses difficulties in the cosmic model presented in Metaphysics XII 8, where all the spheres rotate around the Earth, the center of the universe (pp. 14, 92). However, Bowen maintains that, beyond its explicit content, the \u201cdigression\u201d is in reality a response to Philoponus. The latter is not mentioned directly; instead, Simplicius presents Xenarchus\u2019 objections and counters them with the arguments developed by Alexander of Aphrodisias.\r\n\r\nOnly after addressing these objections, \u201clong after Philoponus\u2019 objections to the Aristotelian aether have been answered, does Simplicius again take up, without mentioning Philoponus, the question of the homocentric planetary theory (...). So the astronomical digression (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ad\u03ba\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) at the close of In De Caelo 2.12 is, logically speaking, a part of Simplicius\u2019 attempt to deal with Philoponus\u201d (p. 15). [introduction p. 294-295]","btype":3,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PxYyMRyYuxV6BPl","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1410,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia graeco-arabica","volume":"6","issue":"","pages":"294-301"}},"sort":["Review: Bowen, A.C., Simplicius on the Planets and Their Motions. In Defense of a Heresy"]}