| Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 175-206 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
| Translator(s) |
| Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see §5). Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714), Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker. Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia. One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1468","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1468,"authors_free":[{"id":2541,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2542,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480\u2013560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius\u2019 works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that \u201cthe ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted\u201d (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius\u2019 works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see \u00a75).\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),\r\n\r\n Simplicius\u2019 importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.\r\n\r\nNineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores\/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels\u2019 edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.\r\n\r\nOne of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius\u2019 writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors\u2014but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/archives\/sum2020\/entries\/simplicius\/","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1468,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 175-206 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
| Title | Simplicius |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Published in | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Zalta, Edward N. |
| Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see §5).
Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),
Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.
Nineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’ edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.
One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’ writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction] |
| Online Resources | https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/simplicius/ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1468","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1468,"authors_free":[{"id":2541,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2542,"entry_id":1468,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":185,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","free_first_name":"Edward N.","free_last_name":"Zalta","norm_person":{"id":185,"first_name":"Edward N.","last_name":"Zalta","full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132645920","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480\u2013560 CE), roughly a contemporary of John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatonic commentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegetes within the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias (around 200 CE). Simplicius\u2019 works are an unmatched source for the intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic, and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independent thinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Best known for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, he nevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and considered himself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianity was the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed to show that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also more venerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressed by charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers, Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that \u201cthe ancient wisdom (palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted\u201d (In Phys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and other Neoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whom philosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently been observed, Simplicius\u2019 works, despite their scholarly outlook, have an important spiritual dimension (see \u00a75).\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 commentaries have only recently been studied with an eye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a mere source for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),\r\n\r\n Simplicius\u2019 importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophy and science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independent thinker.\r\n\r\nNineteenth-century Quellenforschung was especially interested in his Commentary on the Physics, which was edited in two volumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuor priores\/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) by Hermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels\u2019 edition of the Doxographi Graeci (Greek Doxographers), which includes the main doctrines on natural philosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.\r\n\r\nOne of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius\u2019 writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of his predecessors\u2014but always bearing in mind that it is only possible to appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material at his disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/archives\/sum2020\/entries\/simplicius\/","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":185,"full_name":"Zalta, Edward N.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1468,"section_of":1350,"pages":"","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1350,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":6,"language":"en","title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), which as of March 2018, has nearly 1600 entries online. From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up-to-date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected. [author's description]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/index.html","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":null}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius"]}