| Title | Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | The Classical Review, New Series |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 464-465 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Smith, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The seventh book of Aristotle's Physics was as problematic in antiquity as it is today. Modern scholars have found its place and role in the Physics as a whole difficult to define. Its content seems to be superseded by the apparently more cogent arguments of Book Eight for an unmoved mover. Eudemus seems to have rejected it as spurious, as his version of the Physics omitted this book, and Themistius omits the first chapter and skims over the rest. Alexander thought the arguments were rather formal, while Simplicius finds them weak. The latter, to whom we are indebted for much of our information about ancient attitudes toward the book, thought it was written earlier than Book Eight, which then replaced it. None of this is simplified by the existence of two versions for at least the first three chapters. Nevertheless, Simplicius took the book seriously enough to write an 85-page commentary on it. Simplicius, in fact, frequently suggests the important contribution of the arguments in Book Seven to their continuation in Book Eight (cf. H., p. 103 n. 16, who also notes how Simplicius elsewhere refers to Book Seven rather than to Book Eight for the important theme of the mover). In this, Simplicius anticipates, in a way, the important recent work of Robert Wardy (The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle's Physics VII, Cambridge, 1990), who has reinstated the independent value of Book Seven as a preparation for the later book and not infrequently alludes to Simplicius. Not the least merit of H.'s notes is the full use he makes of Wardy's work. H.'s translation is marked by the care and clarity we have come to expect from this series. There are frequent pointers in the text to clarify the occurrence of Greek technical terms. This is aided by a full English-Greek glossary and a Greek-English index, in addition to a 16-page subject index. The notes, which are gathered in some 30 pages at the end rather than printed at the foot of the page as in earlier volumes, seem more extensive, while the new format allows for longer individual notes. Space is not squandered, and much useful material and insightful commentary can be found in these pages. In addition to helping relate Simplicius' interpretations to the text of Aristotle, H. is also attentive to Simplicius' Neoplatonic concerns. Simplicius, for example, is clearly puzzled as to what entities in the Neoplatonic world Aristotle's concepts might apply. Initially, he interprets Aristotle's analysis of "internal movement" as soul moving body, where something is seen to move but we cannot point to the mover (1038, 1f.). Later, he restricts this to the soul alone, citing Phaedrus 245c8, but finally decides to use the common Neoplatonic strategy of restricting Aristotle's analysis to the sublunar world. In fact, Simplicius is groping toward an understanding of the contribution of the argument in Book Seven to the unmoved mover of Book Eight. He points to the connection by narrowing the meaning of Aristotle's "first moved mover" to "something first imparting motion which is no longer being moved itself by another" (1047, 15). (Aristotle's first mover in Book Seven, though not moved by another, is nevertheless in motion.) At the same time, Simplicius is quite clear that Aristotle is not referring to a cosmic mover here. Thus, at 1048, 15f., he distinguishes "the very first, unmoved cause of motion" and the "proximate mover," which he thinks Aristotle is referring to in Book Seven. H.'s notes not only clarify Simplicius' interpretation of the Aristotelian text but also aid our understanding of Simplicius' creative philosophical concerns. This translation, therefore, will be of use to those with Neoplatonic as well as Aristotelian interests. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qOElwVrkx2iCYIO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"847","_score":null,"_source":{"id":847,"authors_free":[{"id":1251,"entry_id":847,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7"},"abstract":"The seventh book of Aristotle's Physics was as problematic in antiquity as it is today. Modern scholars have found its place and role in the Physics as a whole difficult to define. Its content seems to be superseded by the apparently more cogent arguments of Book Eight for an unmoved mover. Eudemus seems to have rejected it as spurious, as his version of the Physics omitted this book, and Themistius omits the first chapter and skims over the rest. Alexander thought the arguments were rather formal, while Simplicius finds them weak. The latter, to whom we are indebted for much of our information about ancient attitudes toward the book, thought it was written earlier than Book Eight, which then replaced it.\r\n\r\nNone of this is simplified by the existence of two versions for at least the first three chapters. Nevertheless, Simplicius took the book seriously enough to write an 85-page commentary on it. Simplicius, in fact, frequently suggests the important contribution of the arguments in Book Seven to their continuation in Book Eight (cf. H., p. 103 n. 16, who also notes how Simplicius elsewhere refers to Book Seven rather than to Book Eight for the important theme of the mover). In this, Simplicius anticipates, in a way, the important recent work of Robert Wardy (The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle's Physics VII, Cambridge, 1990), who has reinstated the independent value of Book Seven as a preparation for the later book and not infrequently alludes to Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNot the least merit of H.'s notes is the full use he makes of Wardy's work. H.'s translation is marked by the care and clarity we have come to expect from this series. There are frequent pointers in the text to clarify the occurrence of Greek technical terms. This is aided by a full English-Greek glossary and a Greek-English index, in addition to a 16-page subject index. The notes, which are gathered in some 30 pages at the end rather than printed at the foot of the page as in earlier volumes, seem more extensive, while the new format allows for longer individual notes. Space is not squandered, and much useful material and insightful commentary can be found in these pages.\r\n\r\nIn addition to helping relate Simplicius' interpretations to the text of Aristotle, H. is also attentive to Simplicius' Neoplatonic concerns. Simplicius, for example, is clearly puzzled as to what entities in the Neoplatonic world Aristotle's concepts might apply. Initially, he interprets Aristotle's analysis of \"internal movement\" as soul moving body, where something is seen to move but we cannot point to the mover (1038, 1f.). Later, he restricts this to the soul alone, citing Phaedrus 245c8, but finally decides to use the common Neoplatonic strategy of restricting Aristotle's analysis to the sublunar world.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Simplicius is groping toward an understanding of the contribution of the argument in Book Seven to the unmoved mover of Book Eight. He points to the connection by narrowing the meaning of Aristotle's \"first moved mover\" to \"something first imparting motion which is no longer being moved itself by another\" (1047, 15). (Aristotle's first mover in Book Seven, though not moved by another, is nevertheless in motion.) At the same time, Simplicius is quite clear that Aristotle is not referring to a cosmic mover here. Thus, at 1048, 15f., he distinguishes \"the very first, unmoved cause of motion\" and the \"proximate mover,\" which he thinks Aristotle is referring to in Book Seven.\r\n\r\nH.'s notes not only clarify Simplicius' interpretation of the Aristotelian text but also aid our understanding of Simplicius' creative philosophical concerns. This translation, therefore, will be of use to those with Neoplatonic as well as Aristotelian interests. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qOElwVrkx2iCYIO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":847,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"45","issue":"2","pages":"464-465"}},"sort":[1995]}
| Title | Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7 |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1995 |
| Journal | The Classical Review, New Series |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 464-465 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Smith, Andrew |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The seventh book of Aristotle's Physics was as problematic in antiquity as it is today. Modern scholars have found its place and role in the Physics as a whole difficult to define. Its content seems to be superseded by the apparently more cogent arguments of Book Eight for an unmoved mover. Eudemus seems to have rejected it as spurious, as his version of the Physics omitted this book, and Themistius omits the first chapter and skims over the rest. Alexander thought the arguments were rather formal, while Simplicius finds them weak. The latter, to whom we are indebted for much of our information about ancient attitudes toward the book, thought it was written earlier than Book Eight, which then replaced it. None of this is simplified by the existence of two versions for at least the first three chapters. Nevertheless, Simplicius took the book seriously enough to write an 85-page commentary on it. Simplicius, in fact, frequently suggests the important contribution of the arguments in Book Seven to their continuation in Book Eight (cf. H., p. 103 n. 16, who also notes how Simplicius elsewhere refers to Book Seven rather than to Book Eight for the important theme of the mover). In this, Simplicius anticipates, in a way, the important recent work of Robert Wardy (The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle's Physics VII, Cambridge, 1990), who has reinstated the independent value of Book Seven as a preparation for the later book and not infrequently alludes to Simplicius. Not the least merit of H.'s notes is the full use he makes of Wardy's work. H.'s translation is marked by the care and clarity we have come to expect from this series. There are frequent pointers in the text to clarify the occurrence of Greek technical terms. This is aided by a full English-Greek glossary and a Greek-English index, in addition to a 16-page subject index. The notes, which are gathered in some 30 pages at the end rather than printed at the foot of the page as in earlier volumes, seem more extensive, while the new format allows for longer individual notes. Space is not squandered, and much useful material and insightful commentary can be found in these pages. In addition to helping relate Simplicius' interpretations to the text of Aristotle, H. is also attentive to Simplicius' Neoplatonic concerns. Simplicius, for example, is clearly puzzled as to what entities in the Neoplatonic world Aristotle's concepts might apply. Initially, he interprets Aristotle's analysis of "internal movement" as soul moving body, where something is seen to move but we cannot point to the mover (1038, 1f.). Later, he restricts this to the soul alone, citing Phaedrus 245c8, but finally decides to use the common Neoplatonic strategy of restricting Aristotle's analysis to the sublunar world. In fact, Simplicius is groping toward an understanding of the contribution of the argument in Book Seven to the unmoved mover of Book Eight. He points to the connection by narrowing the meaning of Aristotle's "first moved mover" to "something first imparting motion which is no longer being moved itself by another" (1047, 15). (Aristotle's first mover in Book Seven, though not moved by another, is nevertheless in motion.) At the same time, Simplicius is quite clear that Aristotle is not referring to a cosmic mover here. Thus, at 1048, 15f., he distinguishes "the very first, unmoved cause of motion" and the "proximate mover," which he thinks Aristotle is referring to in Book Seven. H.'s notes not only clarify Simplicius' interpretation of the Aristotelian text but also aid our understanding of Simplicius' creative philosophical concerns. This translation, therefore, will be of use to those with Neoplatonic as well as Aristotelian interests. [the entire text] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qOElwVrkx2iCYIO |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"847","_score":null,"_source":{"id":847,"authors_free":[{"id":1251,"entry_id":847,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":232,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Smith, Andrew","free_first_name":"Andrew","free_last_name":"Smith","norm_person":{"id":232,"first_name":"Andrew","last_name":"Smith","full_name":"Smith, Andrew","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122322606","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7","main_title":{"title":"Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7"},"abstract":"The seventh book of Aristotle's Physics was as problematic in antiquity as it is today. Modern scholars have found its place and role in the Physics as a whole difficult to define. Its content seems to be superseded by the apparently more cogent arguments of Book Eight for an unmoved mover. Eudemus seems to have rejected it as spurious, as his version of the Physics omitted this book, and Themistius omits the first chapter and skims over the rest. Alexander thought the arguments were rather formal, while Simplicius finds them weak. The latter, to whom we are indebted for much of our information about ancient attitudes toward the book, thought it was written earlier than Book Eight, which then replaced it.\r\n\r\nNone of this is simplified by the existence of two versions for at least the first three chapters. Nevertheless, Simplicius took the book seriously enough to write an 85-page commentary on it. Simplicius, in fact, frequently suggests the important contribution of the arguments in Book Seven to their continuation in Book Eight (cf. H., p. 103 n. 16, who also notes how Simplicius elsewhere refers to Book Seven rather than to Book Eight for the important theme of the mover). In this, Simplicius anticipates, in a way, the important recent work of Robert Wardy (The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle's Physics VII, Cambridge, 1990), who has reinstated the independent value of Book Seven as a preparation for the later book and not infrequently alludes to Simplicius.\r\n\r\nNot the least merit of H.'s notes is the full use he makes of Wardy's work. H.'s translation is marked by the care and clarity we have come to expect from this series. There are frequent pointers in the text to clarify the occurrence of Greek technical terms. This is aided by a full English-Greek glossary and a Greek-English index, in addition to a 16-page subject index. The notes, which are gathered in some 30 pages at the end rather than printed at the foot of the page as in earlier volumes, seem more extensive, while the new format allows for longer individual notes. Space is not squandered, and much useful material and insightful commentary can be found in these pages.\r\n\r\nIn addition to helping relate Simplicius' interpretations to the text of Aristotle, H. is also attentive to Simplicius' Neoplatonic concerns. Simplicius, for example, is clearly puzzled as to what entities in the Neoplatonic world Aristotle's concepts might apply. Initially, he interprets Aristotle's analysis of \"internal movement\" as soul moving body, where something is seen to move but we cannot point to the mover (1038, 1f.). Later, he restricts this to the soul alone, citing Phaedrus 245c8, but finally decides to use the common Neoplatonic strategy of restricting Aristotle's analysis to the sublunar world.\r\n\r\nIn fact, Simplicius is groping toward an understanding of the contribution of the argument in Book Seven to the unmoved mover of Book Eight. He points to the connection by narrowing the meaning of Aristotle's \"first moved mover\" to \"something first imparting motion which is no longer being moved itself by another\" (1047, 15). (Aristotle's first mover in Book Seven, though not moved by another, is nevertheless in motion.) At the same time, Simplicius is quite clear that Aristotle is not referring to a cosmic mover here. Thus, at 1048, 15f., he distinguishes \"the very first, unmoved cause of motion\" and the \"proximate mover,\" which he thinks Aristotle is referring to in Book Seven.\r\n\r\nH.'s notes not only clarify Simplicius' interpretation of the Aristotelian text but also aid our understanding of Simplicius' creative philosophical concerns. This translation, therefore, will be of use to those with Neoplatonic as well as Aristotelian interests. [the entire text]","btype":3,"date":"1995","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qOElwVrkx2iCYIO","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":232,"full_name":"Smith, Andrew","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":847,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review, New Series","volume":"45","issue":"2","pages":"464-465"}},"sort":["Review of Hagen, C. (tr.): Simplicius, On Aristotle Physics 7"]}