| Title | Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2021 |
| Publication Place | Paris |
| Publisher | Vrin |
| Series | Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Stevens, Annick(Stevens, Annick) . |
| Comment comprendre la thèse d’Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une durée ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa régularité? Quel est son rapport avec l’espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l’univers? Des repères comme l’instant, le présent, la simultanéité, ont-ils un sens indépendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment débattues parmi les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d’entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l’écho autant que l’arbitre. Ses propositions, étonnamment modernes, sont autant d’occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui défie encore physiciens et philosophes. Traduit pour la première fois en français, le texte est accompagné d’une présentation détaillée et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compréhension. Traduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1516","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1516,"authors_free":[{"id":2632,"entry_id":1516,"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}},{"id":2633,"entry_id":1516,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps"},"abstract":"Comment comprendre la th\u00e8se d\u2019Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une dur\u00e9e ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa r\u00e9gularit\u00e9? Quel est son rapport avec l\u2019espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l\u2019univers? Des rep\u00e8res comme l\u2019instant, le pr\u00e9sent, la simultan\u00e9it\u00e9, ont-ils un sens ind\u00e9pendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment d\u00e9battues parmi les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d\u2019entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l\u2019\u00e9cho autant que l\u2019arbitre. Ses propositions, \u00e9tonnamment modernes, sont autant d\u2019occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui d\u00e9fie encore physiciens et philosophes.\r\nTraduit pour la premi\u00e8re fois en fran\u00e7ais, le texte est accompagn\u00e9 d\u2019une pr\u00e9sentation d\u00e9taill\u00e9e et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compr\u00e9hension.\r\n\r\nTraduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2021","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1516,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que des Textes Philosophiques","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2021]}
| Title | Postérité de l’être. Simplicius interprète de Parménide |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1991 |
| Publication Place | Bruxelles |
| Publisher | Ousia |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Stevens, Annick |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument. S.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography. Interspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, "teleion" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as "parfait," "telos" in the next line as "accomplissement," but "teleutê" further down as "fin."Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and "l’Étant'" and "l’être'" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology. The main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of "ateleston" with "apeiron" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of "apatêlon" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"51","_score":null,"_source":{"id":51,"authors_free":[{"id":59,"entry_id":51,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide","main_title":{"title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide"},"abstract":"Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument.\r\n\r\nS.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography.\r\nInterspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, \"teleion\" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as \"parfait,\" \"telos\" in the next line as \"accomplissement,\" but \"teleut\u00ea\" further down as \"fin.\"Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and \"l\u2019\u00c9tant'\" and \"l\u2019\u00eatre'\" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology.\r\nThe main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of \"ateleston\" with \"apeiron\" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of \"apat\u00ealon\" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright)","btype":1,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":51,"pubplace":"Bruxelles","publisher":"Ousia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[1991]}
| Title | La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1989 |
| Journal | Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 65-74 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Stevens, Annick |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| J'en arrive à faire la synthèse de l'apport positif et original qui résulte de l'étude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se démarque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interprétation la plus plausible : ainsi, la matérialité des racines à partir desquelles sont créés tous les corps et l'explication de leurs mélanges par l'introduction de principes de création, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise à la réfutation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la désignation des principes créateurs à partir de notions connues dans le réel observable, pour décrire le réel invisible. D'autre part, Simplicius se démarque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique à quatre phases. Là encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Empédocle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont décrits : le tout unifié de la Sphère (où la Haine, néanmoins, n'est pas détruite mais retirée aux confins) et la multiplicité née de l'opposition des deux principes créateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut créer seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'opposés, complémentaires. Reste à savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultanément et, à ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision néo-platonicienne au détriment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la « double disposition » sont faibles et parfois même péremptoires, dans la mesure où il annihile les passages qui le gênent en les qualifiant de « fiction poétique ». En revanche, sa « solution de rechange », qui fait état d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilité (donc, d'une certaine manière, d'une double manifestation du réel) — cette immobilité résultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir —, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des théories présocratiques en général et empédocléenne en particulier, est extrêmement intéressante et peut ouvrir la voie à un nouvel examen approfondi du poème d'Empédocle. [conclusion p. 74] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":480,"authors_free":[{"id":650,"entry_id":480,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"J'en arrive \u00e0 faire la synth\u00e8se de l'apport positif et original qui r\u00e9sulte de l'\u00e9tude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se d\u00e9marque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interpr\u00e9tation la plus plausible : ainsi, la mat\u00e9rialit\u00e9 des racines \u00e0 partir desquelles sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s tous les corps et l'explication de leurs m\u00e9langes par l'introduction de principes de cr\u00e9ation, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise \u00e0 la r\u00e9futation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la d\u00e9signation des principes cr\u00e9ateurs \u00e0 partir de notions connues dans le r\u00e9el observable, pour d\u00e9crire le r\u00e9el invisible.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, Simplicius se d\u00e9marque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique \u00e0 quatre phases. L\u00e0 encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Emp\u00e9docle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont d\u00e9crits : le tout unifi\u00e9 de la Sph\u00e8re (o\u00f9 la Haine, n\u00e9anmoins, n'est pas d\u00e9truite mais retir\u00e9e aux confins) et la multiplicit\u00e9 n\u00e9e de l'opposition des deux principes cr\u00e9ateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut cr\u00e9er seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'oppos\u00e9s, compl\u00e9mentaires.\r\n\r\nReste \u00e0 savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultan\u00e9ment et, \u00e0 ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision n\u00e9o-platonicienne au d\u00e9triment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la \u00ab double disposition \u00bb sont faibles et parfois m\u00eame p\u00e9remptoires, dans la mesure o\u00f9 il annihile les passages qui le g\u00eanent en les qualifiant de \u00ab fiction po\u00e9tique \u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, sa \u00ab solution de rechange \u00bb, qui fait \u00e9tat d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilit\u00e9 (donc, d'une certaine mani\u00e8re, d'une double manifestation du r\u00e9el) \u2014 cette immobilit\u00e9 r\u00e9sultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir \u2014, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des th\u00e9ories pr\u00e9socratiques en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et emp\u00e9docl\u00e9enne en particulier, est extr\u00eamement int\u00e9ressante et peut ouvrir la voie \u00e0 un nouvel examen approfondi du po\u00e8me d'Emp\u00e9docle. [conclusion p. 74]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire","volume":"67","issue":"1","pages":"65-74"}},"sort":[1989]}
| Title | La Physique d’Empédocle selon Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1989 |
| Journal | Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 65-74 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Stevens, Annick |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
J'en arrive à faire la synthèse de l'apport positif et original qui résulte de l'étude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se démarque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interprétation la plus plausible : ainsi, la matérialité des racines à partir desquelles sont créés tous les corps et l'explication de leurs mélanges par l'introduction de principes de création, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise à la réfutation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la désignation des principes créateurs à partir de notions connues dans le réel observable, pour décrire le réel invisible. D'autre part, Simplicius se démarque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique à quatre phases. Là encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Empédocle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont décrits : le tout unifié de la Sphère (où la Haine, néanmoins, n'est pas détruite mais retirée aux confins) et la multiplicité née de l'opposition des deux principes créateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut créer seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'opposés, complémentaires. Reste à savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultanément et, à ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision néo-platonicienne au détriment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la « double disposition » sont faibles et parfois même péremptoires, dans la mesure où il annihile les passages qui le gênent en les qualifiant de « fiction poétique ». En revanche, sa « solution de rechange », qui fait état d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilité (donc, d'une certaine manière, d'une double manifestation du réel) — cette immobilité résultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir —, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des théories présocratiques en général et empédocléenne en particulier, est extrêmement intéressante et peut ouvrir la voie à un nouvel examen approfondi du poème d'Empédocle. [conclusion p. 74] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"480","_score":null,"_source":{"id":480,"authors_free":[{"id":650,"entry_id":480,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"},"abstract":"J'en arrive \u00e0 faire la synth\u00e8se de l'apport positif et original qui r\u00e9sulte de l'\u00e9tude de Simplicius. Tout d'abord, quand il ne se d\u00e9marque pas de la tradition doxographique, c'est qu'elle transmet l'interpr\u00e9tation la plus plausible : ainsi, la mat\u00e9rialit\u00e9 des racines \u00e0 partir desquelles sont cr\u00e9\u00e9s tous les corps et l'explication de leurs m\u00e9langes par l'introduction de principes de cr\u00e9ation, auxquels il donne un nom assez prudent pour ne pas offrir prise \u00e0 la r\u00e9futation. Remarquons en outre sa clairvoyance quant au choix de la d\u00e9signation des principes cr\u00e9ateurs \u00e0 partir de notions connues dans le r\u00e9el observable, pour d\u00e9crire le r\u00e9el invisible.\r\n\r\nD'autre part, Simplicius se d\u00e9marque des autres doxographes anciens en refusant la conception d'un cycle cosmique \u00e0 quatre phases. L\u00e0 encore, si l'on veut respecter le texte d'Emp\u00e9docle, on ne peut que lui donner raison : seuls deux stades cosmiques sont d\u00e9crits : le tout unifi\u00e9 de la Sph\u00e8re (o\u00f9 la Haine, n\u00e9anmoins, n'est pas d\u00e9truite mais retir\u00e9e aux confins) et la multiplicit\u00e9 n\u00e9e de l'opposition des deux principes cr\u00e9ateurs. Il fallait en effet souligner que ni l'un ni l'autre ne peut cr\u00e9er seul ; en ce sens, ils sont, autant qu'oppos\u00e9s, compl\u00e9mentaires.\r\n\r\nReste \u00e0 savoir si ces deux stades existent alternativement ou simultan\u00e9ment et, \u00e0 ce propos, il est clair que Simplicius a voulu imposer la vision n\u00e9o-platonicienne au d\u00e9triment de la stricte observation du texte. Ses arguments en faveur de la \u00ab double disposition \u00bb sont faibles et parfois m\u00eame p\u00e9remptoires, dans la mesure o\u00f9 il annihile les passages qui le g\u00eanent en les qualifiant de \u00ab fiction po\u00e9tique \u00bb.\r\n\r\nEn revanche, sa \u00ab solution de rechange \u00bb, qui fait \u00e9tat d'une coexistence entre le mouvement et une certaine forme d'immobilit\u00e9 (donc, d'une certaine mani\u00e8re, d'une double manifestation du r\u00e9el) \u2014 cette immobilit\u00e9 r\u00e9sultant de l'incessant roulement du devenir \u2014, cette conception, loin d'entrer en contradiction avec ce que nous savons des th\u00e9ories pr\u00e9socratiques en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral et emp\u00e9docl\u00e9enne en particulier, est extr\u00eamement int\u00e9ressante et peut ouvrir la voie \u00e0 un nouvel examen approfondi du po\u00e8me d'Emp\u00e9docle. [conclusion p. 74]","btype":3,"date":"1989","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/tQhjx4b0GzJ1L5S","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":480,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire","volume":"67","issue":"1","pages":"65-74"}},"sort":["La Physique d\u2019Emp\u00e9docle selon Simplicius"]}
| Title | Postérité de l’être. Simplicius interprète de Parménide |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1991 |
| Publication Place | Bruxelles |
| Publisher | Ousia |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Stevens, Annick |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument. S.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography. Interspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, "teleion" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as "parfait," "telos" in the next line as "accomplissement," but "teleutê" further down as "fin."Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and "l’Étant'" and "l’être'" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology. The main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of "ateleston" with "apeiron" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of "apatêlon" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"51","_score":null,"_source":{"id":51,"authors_free":[{"id":59,"entry_id":51,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide","main_title":{"title":"Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide"},"abstract":"Stevens sets out to clarify Parmenides' philosophy with an analysis of Simplicius' presentation of his fragments and the related contextual exposition. This is a complex task, as twelve centuries separate Simplicius from the Presocratics, and, although generous beyond his needs in the length of Eleatic quotations, Simplicius is only too ready to enlist Parmenides as an earlier witness to the Platonic and Neoplatonic interpretations that pervade his commentary on Aristotelian texts. A further complication is that the order imposed by Aristotle's Physics and De Caelo is at variance with the sequence of Eleatic argument.\r\n\r\nS.'s cahier is much too brief for the subject-matter involved. He has one chapter each on Parmenides' Aletheia and Doxa, sandwiched between a brief introduction and conclusion. Additionally, there is an Appendix, more than half the length of what has preceded, which consists of a translation into French (without the Greek text but with some annotation) of relevant sections from Simplicius' Phys. 28-180, 243-4, and DC 556-60. An Index of the fragments of Parmenides cited in these two works is added, as well as a short bibliography.\r\nInterspersed in the text are tables giving Greek words from Simplicius, their French translation, and a brief justification. The point of these is obscure, and, since they are hard to follow in the absence of a continuous text, the result may appear arbitrary. For example, \"teleion\" at Phys. 29.10 is translated as \"parfait,\" \"telos\" in the next line as \"accomplissement,\" but \"teleut\u00ea\" further down as \"fin.\"Translation of Eleatic texts in general looks easier in French than English, with 'il' conveniently ambiguous for Greek masculine, neuter, or impersonal subject, and \"l\u2019\u00c9tant'\" and \"l\u2019\u00eatre'\" (with and without capitals) for ontological terminology.\r\nThe main problem with S.'s study is the level of scholarship involved and consequently the readership targeted. There are a number of ways of tackling the subject, none of which S. holds to consistently. One is a straightforward introduction to reading Parmenides' lines in their Simplicius context, and sometimes S. is writing in this way. The first chapter, for example, starts with a straightforward narrative of the 'signs' for the Aletheia, and the second with the usual listing of different views on the status of the Doxa. Simplicius' position on both these topics is given, but without any explanation of the Neoplatonic terms (like 'Etant-Un') that are used. Secondly, there is a scholarly monograph struggling to emerge. The reader can suddenly be involved in a sophisticated comparison of Parmenides' concept of \"ateleston\" with \"apeiron\" in Melissus, or in textual exegesis, or in studying the relevance of the first two hypotheses of Plato's Parmenides, or the exact meaning of \"apat\u00ealon\" in B 8.52. But thirdly what is needed, as S. indicates in the subtitle, is a full and detailed discussion of Simplicius as an interpreter of Parmenides. This could usefully tackle Simplicius' reasons for finding Parmenides compatible with both Plato and Aristotle, the particular readings (or re-readings) of all four ancient authors that might be involved in the exercise, what traps might thereby be set in the path of those who are tracking the original Parmenides, and what implications would then arise for Simplicius' treatment of other Presocratics. All this is yet to be done. (Review by M. R. Wright)","btype":1,"date":"1991","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/emrqNfIbKqCFiEi","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":51,"pubplace":"Bruxelles","publisher":"Ousia","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Post\u00e9rit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00eatre. Simplicius interpr\u00e8te de Parm\u00e9nide"]}
| Title | Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2021 |
| Publication Place | Paris |
| Publisher | Vrin |
| Series | Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Simplicius |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Stevens, Annick(Stevens, Annick) |
Comment comprendre la thèse d’Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une durée ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa régularité? Quel est son rapport avec l’espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l’univers? Des repères comme l’instant, le présent, la simultanéité, ont-ils un sens indépendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment débattues parmi les commentateurs grecs d’Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d’entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l’écho autant que l’arbitre. Ses propositions, étonnamment modernes, sont autant d’occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui défie encore physiciens et philosophes. Traduit pour la première fois en français, le texte est accompagné d’une présentation détaillée et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compréhension. Traduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1516","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1516,"authors_free":[{"id":2632,"entry_id":1516,"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}},{"id":2633,"entry_id":1516,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":323,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Stevens, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Stevens","norm_person":{"id":323,"first_name":" Annick","last_name":"Stevens","full_name":"Stevens, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1195240120","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps"},"abstract":"Comment comprendre la th\u00e8se d\u2019Aristote que le temps est un nombre? Est-il une dur\u00e9e ou un ordre de succession, un simple aspect du devenir ou le responsable de sa r\u00e9gularit\u00e9? Quel est son rapport avec l\u2019espace? Existe-t-il un temps unique pour les divers changements dans l\u2019univers? Des rep\u00e8res comme l\u2019instant, le pr\u00e9sent, la simultan\u00e9it\u00e9, ont-ils un sens ind\u00e9pendamment de notre esprit? De toutes ces questions ardemment d\u00e9battues parmi les commentateurs grecs d\u2019Aristote, Simplicius, le dernier d\u2019entre eux et certainement le plus perspicace, se fait l\u2019\u00e9cho autant que l\u2019arbitre. Ses propositions, \u00e9tonnamment modernes, sont autant d\u2019occasions pour nous de repenser ce concept qui d\u00e9fie encore physiciens et philosophes.\r\nTraduit pour la premi\u00e8re fois en fran\u00e7ais, le texte est accompagn\u00e9 d\u2019une pr\u00e9sentation d\u00e9taill\u00e9e et de notes explicatives qui en facilitent la compr\u00e9hension.\r\n\r\nTraduction, introduction et notes par A. Stevens. [author's abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2021","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JRtqfd3KmUBPEU1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":323,"full_name":"Stevens, Annick","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1516,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Vrin","series":"Biblioth\u00e8que des Textes Philosophiques","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius. Sur le temps. Commentaire sur la Physique d\u2019Aristote et Corollaire sur le temps"]}