| 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’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23–58. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’ text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing. In completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle’s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius’ abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius’ lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle’s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius’ text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius’ text and removes any differences between Simplicius’ lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases. For the modern text of Aristotle’s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux’s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle’s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg’s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius’ commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius’ text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke’s translation of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke’s version of Simplicius’ In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke’s translations of Simplicius’ astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12. As for Grosseteste’s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy. Next, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius’ Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg’s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius’ text if they so wish. Finally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps—mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12. As in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius’ testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past. Moreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–12 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius’ Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003). For further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25–26. [introduction p. 25-27] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI |
{"_index":"sire","_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 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23\u201358. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019 text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing.\r\n\r\nIn completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius\u2019 abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle\u2019s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius\u2019 text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius\u2019 text and removes any differences between Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases.\r\n\r\nFor the modern text of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux\u2019s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle\u2019s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg\u2019s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius\u2019 commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius\u2019 text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke\u2019s translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke\u2019s version of Simplicius\u2019 In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke\u2019s translations of Simplicius\u2019 astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs for Grosseteste\u2019s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy.\r\n\r\nNext, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg\u2019s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius\u2019 text if they so wish.\r\n\r\nFinally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps\u2014mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius\u2019 testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past.\r\n\r\nMoreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201312 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003).\r\n\r\nFor further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25\u201326. [introduction p. 25-27]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI","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 Metaphysics Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics. Indeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius’ commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all ‘true.’ Such naïveté is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project—a search for a truth that Aristotle’s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms—would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter. I recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius’ account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius’ commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius’ remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics Λ 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics Λ 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius’ with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle’s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century. That scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics 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 Metaphysics Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would 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 dated 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 Metaphysics 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. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory. And finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius’ history of astronomy in Aristotle’s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation? My own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith—or, if you will, unassailable credulity—may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them. Few modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes—the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue. To this end, I have translated Heiberg’s edition of Simplicius’ commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning. 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. Thus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less. Simplicius’ Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius’ technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences. This translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this. Finally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/skKbEWtOO6LigIs |
{"_index":"sire","_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 Metaphysics \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all \u2018true.\u2019 Such na\u00efvet\u00e9 is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project\u2014a search for a truth that Aristotle\u2019s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms\u2014would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter.\r\n\r\nI recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius\u2019 account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted.\r\n\r\nI have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius\u2019 commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius\u2019 remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics \u039b 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics \u039b 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius\u2019 with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle\u2019s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century.\r\n\r\nThat scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics \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 Metaphysics \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would 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 dated 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.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Metaphysics \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. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius\u2019 history of astronomy in Aristotle\u2019s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation?\r\n\r\nMy own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith\u2014or, if you will, unassailable credulity\u2014may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them.\r\n\r\nFew modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes\u2014the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue.\r\n\r\nTo this end, I have translated Heiberg\u2019s edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning.\r\n\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\n\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\r\nThus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius\u2019 technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences.\r\n\r\nThis translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this.\r\n\r\nFinally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/skKbEWtOO6LigIs","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’ 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 Metaphysics Λ 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics. Indeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius’ commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all ‘true.’ Such naïveté is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project—a search for a truth that Aristotle’s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms—would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter. I recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius’ account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted. I have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius’ comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics Λ 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius’ commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius’ remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics Λ 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics Λ 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius’ with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle’s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century. That scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics 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 Metaphysics Λ 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would 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 dated 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 Metaphysics 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. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory. And finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius’ history of astronomy in Aristotle’s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation? My own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith—or, if you will, unassailable credulity—may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them. Few modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes—the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue. To this end, I have translated Heiberg’s edition of Simplicius’ commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning. 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. Thus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius’ account of Metaphysics Λ 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less. Simplicius’ Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius’ technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences. This translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this. Finally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/skKbEWtOO6LigIs |
{"_index":"sire","_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 Metaphysics \u039b 8, are almost always accepted as gospel in their broad outlines. Take any recent history of early Greek astronomy you please, and you will find that its author immediately turns to Simplicius as the source clarifying what Aristotle writes in this chapter of his Metaphysics.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the main challenge scholars perceive in Simplicius\u2019 commentary is to tease out and reconstruct the underlying mathematical theory that would make it all \u2018true.\u2019 Such na\u00efvet\u00e9 is breathtaking. Few who read Simplicius and understand his historiographical project\u2014a search for a truth that Aristotle\u2019s text is supposed to embody rather than a study of the text itself on its own terms\u2014would elevate him to a position of such unquestioned authority. And those who have reflected on the often intractable problems in assessing the truth of ancient reports or testimonia in the sciences will quite naturally decline to take Simplicius at his word in this matter.\r\n\r\nI recognize, of course, that it is customary to detect errors in Simplicius\u2019 account and to attribute them either to Aristotle or to Simplicius; but this, I fear, typically amounts to little more than a demonstration that we moderns can be speciously clever while taking what Simplicius writes for granted.\r\n\r\nI have written at length elsewhere that Simplicius\u2019 comments on De caelo 2.12 do not constitute an account of what Aristotle meant in Metaphysics \u039b 8 that we should accept today as properly historical. There is, after all, no extant Greek or Latin text written before the late second century BCE that shows any knowledge of the planetary phenomena of station and retrogradation, which are so central to Simplicius\u2019 commentary. There are also ample signs that Simplicius\u2019 remarks about the history of early astronomy are not a report but a reconstruction occasioned by what Aristotle writes in Metaphysics \u039b 8 and the need to explain why the homocentric planetary theory outlined there was later abandoned by Aristotelians. Moreover, Metaphysics \u039b 8 is itself underdetermined so far as its presentation of this homocentric theory goes. Indeed, there are other interpretations of this presentation that fit far better than Simplicius\u2019 with what we can find elsewhere in Aristotle\u2019s writings and in documents by other writers of the fourth century.\r\n\r\nThat scholars today persist in reading Metaphysics \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 Metaphysics \u039b 8 and of the other related texts written before the late second century that concern planetary motions, that they would 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 dated 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.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the burden must fall on these scholars to demonstrate that Metaphysics \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. Of course, making such a proof will be hard work. Even those sharing the general view that the Greeks of the fourth century were aware of planetary stations and retrogradations do not agree about how these phenomena were understood or explained. In addition, there are my own arguments not only that these texts may be read without supposing such knowledge but also that they should be read without such a supposition, given the contemporaneous evidence of astronomical theory.\r\n\r\nAnd finally, there is the largely unrecognized problem that, even if Simplicius\u2019 history of astronomy in Aristotle\u2019s time is anachronistic, it has a simpler interpretation than the one first propounded in the 19th century by Schiaparelli and elaborated to this day. Granted, these scholars may wish to excuse themselves from the charge of wrongly imputing to Simplicius what they perceive as the real meaning of his text, by claiming that Simplicius is preserving material from earlier sources that he does not understand. But should historians today assent to reading an ancient commentary in a way that makes the commentator irrelevant, and should they do this in the expectation that the interpretation offered reflects the thought of some putative source from whom nothing survives for confirmation?\r\n\r\nMy own view is that compounding such a misreading of an ancient literary genre with such untestable faith\u2014or, if you will, unassailable credulity\u2014may have numerous outcomes, but historical knowledge will not be one of them.\r\n\r\nFew modern historians have examined what Simplicius actually writes\u2014the great tendency is to rely on some learned summary such as that supplied by Heath, who makes accessible in English the pioneering work of Schiaparelli. Accordingly, I here present Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8 so that readers may begin to get their own sense of what is at issue.\r\n\r\nTo this end, I have translated Heiberg\u2019s edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the three narrowly astronomical chapters of the De caelo and have supplied my translation with annotation intended primarily to clarify the technical, scientific meaning.\r\n\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\n\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\r\nThus, I do not engage in the details of the interpretations offered by those who assume that the early Greeks were aware of the planetary phenomena so central to Simplicius\u2019 account of Metaphysics \u039b 8. Still, there is a question about just how much annotation is needed by readers of this journal, and I hope that I have not erred too much in following my natural disposition to say less.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 Greek is typical of scholastic commentary: elliptical, crabbed, and technical. I have tried to deal with this by supplying in square brackets what is missing whenever this seemed necessary or likely to make the meaning easier for the reader to grasp. At the same time, I have tried, so far as is reasonable and within my ability, to capture Simplicius\u2019 technical vocabulary and to preserve the logical structure of his sentences.\r\n\r\nThis translation has benefited greatly from the generous criticism of earlier versions offered by Bernard R. Goldstein and Robert B. Todd: they have saved me from numerous mistakes and infelicities, and I am most pleased to acknowledge this.\r\n\r\nFinally, I am very pleased to record my gratitude to Ken Saito, the Managing Editor of SCIAMVS, for his unflagging interest in this project and his encouragement as I pursued it. That my annotated translation appears in SCIAMVS is ample proof of his very kind support and his patience with a historian whose sense of time seems limited to the past. [introduction p. 23-26]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/skKbEWtOO6LigIs","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’ commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23–58. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius’ text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius’ commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing. In completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle’s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius’ abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius’ lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle’s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius’ text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius’ text and removes any differences between Simplicius’ lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases. For the modern text of Aristotle’s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux’s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle’s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg’s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius’ commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius’ text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke’s translation of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke’s version of Simplicius’ In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke’s translations of Simplicius’ astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12. As for Grosseteste’s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy. Next, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius’ Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg’s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius’ text if they so wish. Finally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps—mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12. As in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius’ testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past. Moreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius’ commentary on De caelo 2.10–12 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius’ Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003). For further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25–26. [introduction p. 25-27] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI |
{"_index":"sire","_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 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, which first appeared in SCIAMVS 4 (2003), 23\u201358. Its aim, as before, is to provide the reader with a suitably annotated rendering of Simplicius\u2019 text that will facilitate addressing critical questions regarding the nature, construction, and historical value of Simplicius\u2019 commentary, especially as it pertains to the history of earlier Greek astronomical theorizing.\r\n\r\nIn completing this project, I have relied strictly on modern editions of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo in presenting the lemmata in full and have relegated comments about any differences with Simplicius\u2019 abbreviated lemmata to footnotes. After all, given that we have only Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and not the full text of the De caelo that he used, there seems little sense in presenting Aristotle\u2019s text in full while combining it with readings from Simplicius\u2019 text, thereby implying a text that does not exist. At the same time, I have preserved the fact that the text quoted or paraphrased in the commentary proper sometimes differs from the text found in the lemmata. Thus, the lemmata presented here differ from those offered by Ian Mueller (2005), since he revises the received text of the De caelo in light of Simplicius\u2019 text and removes any differences between Simplicius\u2019 lemmata and his quotations and paraphrases.\r\n\r\nFor the modern text of Aristotle\u2019s De caelo, my primary source is Paul Moraux\u2019s edition, as it makes extensive use of the indirect tradition in establishing Aristotle\u2019s text. Moreover, as before, I have used Heiberg\u2019s 1894 edition for the text of Simplicius\u2019 commentary. However, caveat lector: this edition has recently been criticized for its reliance on the 1540 edition of the Latin translation of In De caelo made by William of Moerbeke in the 13th century. Additionally, arguments have been made for the importance of the recently discovered translation of De caelo 2 and related passages from Simplicius by Robert Grosseteste in establishing Simplicius\u2019 text. Regrettably, there is only a proper edition thus far of Moerbeke\u2019s translation of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 1; and, though it has certainly proved useful, we must all await the publication of the edition of Moerbeke\u2019s version of Simplicius\u2019 In De caelo 2. This forthcoming edition, as I understand, will account for both of Moerbeke\u2019s translations of Simplicius\u2019 astronomical digression in his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs for Grosseteste\u2019s translation, though there is apparently a typescript edition by the late Fernand Bossier, it seems to be privately circulated, and so far, I have been unable to obtain a copy.\r\n\r\nNext, in interpreting the syntax and meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek, I have used terminology that remains faithful to our ancient sources while also being familiar to historians of science, ensuring an accurate rendering of the technical language that Simplicius employs (and sometimes misuses) in the course of his philosophical and astronomical interpretations. As before, the line numbers in the margins of the translation indicate the line in which the first word of the corresponding line in Heiberg\u2019s text appears. The result is not exact in terms of the actual line count, but it should suffice to allow readers to move between my translation and Simplicius\u2019 text if they so wish.\r\n\r\nFinally, I have supplied extensive footnotes and comments to explicate the many issues that readers should understand in order to assess the nature of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.12. Readers may well disagree with my claims and arguments; however, I trust that this annotation will at least help them avoid missteps\u2014mine included. What I have not done, however, is address the voluminous literature offering reconstructions of the system of homocentric spheres that Simplicius describes in the great astronomical digression concluding his commentary on 2.12.\r\n\r\nAs in Part 1, my overriding aim is to provide only such annotation as allows readers to engage with Simplicius\u2019 testimony directly, without obscuring it beneath layers of learned interpretation and speculation. My hope is that this approach will encourage readers to assess such reconstructions critically. Admittedly, this aim aligns with my own conclusion that such reconstructions, which trace back to Schiaparelli in the 19th century and were largely codified by Heath (1913), must today be seen as an egregious example of how scholars and their communities project their own perspectives onto the past.\r\n\r\nMoreover, this approach fits with my conviction that Simplicius\u2019 commentary on De caelo 2.10\u201312 is historically significant in its own right as a witness to concerns in late antiquity about the nature and foundations of astronomical knowledge. Accordingly, I have limited my remarks on these reconstructions to instances where proponents make claims about the meaning of Simplicius\u2019 Greek or critique his interpretations. For the most part, I have set aside alternative reconstructions proposed by Maula (1974), Heglmeier (1996), Mendell (1998, 2000), and Yavetz (1998, 2001, 2003).\r\n\r\nFor further details on the principles underlying this translation and the format of its presentation, I urge the reader to consult Part 1, especially pages 25\u201326. [introduction p. 25-27]","btype":3,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bK5nxtsNqCbstdI","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"]}