| Title | Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 110 |
| Pages | 244–245 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general). It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts: A biographical introduction A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions A shorter section on textual problems A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben All are of interest and importance. First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources. The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine: Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus) One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius) One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience. Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary. The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV. The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries. Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hje0CYeAY915LhU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":[1990]}
| Title | Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1990 |
| Journal | Journal of Hellenic Studies |
| Volume | 110 |
| Pages | 244–245 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)—though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).
It was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:
A biographical introduction
A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions
A shorter section on textual problems
A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben
All are of interest and importance.
First, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars "we" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.
The central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:
Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius’ invective against John Philoponus)
One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)
One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary
One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension
One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'école éléate
Hoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing "utterances" (phonai), "things" (pragmata, onta), "concepts" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul’s ascent to the noetic world—a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.
Sorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic "school" while listing Simplicius’ quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius’ doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.
The final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels’ edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.
The collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius’ influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'Épictète commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.
Overall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers—those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji—discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/hje0CYeAY915LhU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"708","_score":null,"_source":{"id":708,"authors_free":[{"id":1056,"entry_id":708,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"},"abstract":"Simplicius is a man who might seem destined forever to be used simply as a source for other thinkers, without being given much credit for thinking himself. After all, his surviving works are overtly commentaries on one work or another (overwhelmingly of Aristotle)\u2014though, in fact, small bits of more original work are embedded in these, such as the Corollaries on Space and Time in the Physics commentary. He is also a man of exemplary modesty about his own contributions, always making clear his debts to previous authorities, quoting his sources to an extent unusual in Neoplatonist circles (or indeed in the ancient world in general).\r\n\r\nIt was therefore a happy idea of Mme. Hadot to call together a conference of distinguished Neoplatonists to honor Simplicius and to produce this impressive volume as a result. The work is divided into four (unequal) parts:\r\n\r\n A biographical introduction\r\n A series of essays on doctrinal and methodological questions\r\n A shorter section on textual problems\r\n A pair of essays on Simplicius' Nachleben\r\n\r\nAll are of interest and importance.\r\n\r\nFirst, we have an essay by Ilsetraut Hadot herself (depending in one important respect on the essay of Michel Tardieu, which follows it) on the chronology of Simplicius' life and works. Tardieu, by a fine piece of detective work (Simplicius et les calendriers de Harran), argues with at least great probability that when Simplicius returned with the other philosophers from Persia in 532, it was not to Athens or any other major center but rather to the town of Harran (Carrhae) in Osrhoene. There, a tradition of non-conformist Christianity was tolerant of philosophy, and it is likely where he composed most, if not all, of his commentaries. Certain remarks Simplicius makes in In Phys. 874.23 ff., about the four different calendars \"we\" use, seem to require his presence at the only known place where four calendars were simultaneously in use, as we know from later Arab sources.\r\n\r\nThe central part of the collection comprises six essays on aspects of doctrine:\r\n\r\n Two by Philippe Hoffmann (Categories et langage selon Simplicius: on the purpose (skopos) of Aristotle's Categories and an analysis of Simplicius\u2019 invective against John Philoponus)\r\n One by Henry Blumenthal on the doctrine of the De Anima commentary of Simplicius (if it is indeed by Simplicius)\r\n One by Concetta Luna on Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary\r\n One by Richard Sorabji on Simplicius: Prime Matter as Extension\r\n One by Nestor-Luis Cordero on Simplicius et l'\u00e9cole \u00e9l\u00e9ate\r\n\r\nHoffmann's studies frame this central portion of the work. His first examines Simplicius' account of the skopos of Aristotle's Categories, showing how Simplicius, following Porphyry, views the Categories as addressing \"utterances\" (phonai), \"things\" (pragmata, onta), \"concepts\" (noemata), or all of these. Simplicius interprets the study of language, particularly its primary constituents, as a preparation for the soul\u2019s ascent to the noetic world\u2014a higher interpretation inherited from Iamblichus. In his second study, Hoffmann examines Simplicius' strategies of polemic and invective against Philoponus, particularly in the De Caelo, and Simplicius' view of the higher purpose of studying celestial matters. For Simplicius, even prosaic texts like the Categories could become an elevating and prayerful experience.\r\n\r\nSorabji, in an elegant contribution, shows how Simplicius solves a problem bequeathed by Aristotle by identifying prime matter with extension, which Aristotle did not do. Cordero challenges the idea of an Eleatic \"school\" while listing Simplicius\u2019 quotations of Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus. Blumenthal discusses Simplicius\u2019 doctrine of the soul, though his uncertainty about the authorship of the De Anima commentary (potentially by Priscian) limits the analysis. Luna traces Iamblichean roots in Simplicius' doctrine of relation in the Categories commentary.\r\n\r\nThe final sections include discussions of the manuscript tradition of Simplicius, with contributions by Ilsetraut Hadot, Leonardo Taran, and Dieter Harlfinger. Taran critiques Diels\u2019 edition of Simplicius' Physics commentary, showing its deficiencies due to reliance on unreliable collations and limited understanding of Neoplatonic doctrine. Harlfinger analyzes contamination in the manuscript tradition of the commentary on Books I-IV.\r\n\r\nThe collection concludes with two papers on Simplicius\u2019 influence in the medieval West, one by Fernand Boissier on Latin translations and the influence of the In De Caelo commentary and another by Pierre Hadot on the survival of the Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te commentary in the 15th to 17th centuries.\r\n\r\nOverall, this collection has given Simplicius much of his due as a major commentator and preserver of earlier Greek philosophy. While only three papers\u2014those by Blumenthal, Luna, and Sorabji\u2014discuss any distinctive doctrines of Simplicius, this is perhaps reasonable given that he does not claim originality. Most of what seems distinctive likely goes back to Iamblichus or Syrianus\/Proclus. Yet, it might one day be possible to produce a focused volume on his doctrinal innovations. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1990","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/hje0CYeAY915LhU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":708,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of Hellenic Studies","volume":"110","issue":"","pages":"244\u2013245"}},"sort":["Review of Hadot 1987: Simplicius: Sa vie, son \u0153uvre, sa \tsurvie"]}