| 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/HUpTADpOu1qQR5I |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/HUpTADpOu1qQR5I","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 | 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/HUpTADpOu1qQR5I |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_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\/HUpTADpOu1qQR5I","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"]}