| Title | Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 436-437 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Van Dusen, David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as “he who made the great Comment.” But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by émigrés from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy—the so-called sectatores Simplicii. Despite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, “Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima”, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: “As no other scholar apparently shares Hadot’s view, there is no need for further polemics” (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius’ circles, that it represents “an original and personal engagement with Aristotle’s text” (p. 4), and that the commentator “uses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text” (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: “Modern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts ‘to set right’ a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures” (p. 7). The manuscript basis of S.’s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck’s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: “Hayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina” (p. 149). A concise list of S.’s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume. S.’s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6–13. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (“That also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...”, p. 101). The volume’s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius’ Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists’ appropriation and transmission of Aristotle. Ps.-Simplicius’ text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages—not the last paragraphs of Physics 4—that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of “time” to the “soul.” (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he—like contemporary philosophers—turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time—and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity—would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3. There is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius’ commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body—sexuality, and so on—in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that “the heart” is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas “if the object is pleasant, some other part” is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius’ gloss: “The heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (γεννητικὰ μόρια) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (ἀφροδισιαστικῶν ἡδονῶν)” (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle’s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: “The intellect is not wholly master (οὐ τὸ ὅλον κύριος) of the movement of the living being” (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine’s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus’ refusal of a disciple who was “pursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (τὰς ὑπογαστρίους ἡδονάς),” as Damascius reports? The early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Ps.-Simplicius’ reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access—in conscientious English and in full—to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a “Platonic succession” in Athens. [the entire review] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1294","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1294,"authors_free":[{"id":1884,"entry_id":1294,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"},"abstract":"In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as \u201che who made the great Comment.\u201d But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by \u00e9migr\u00e9s from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy\u2014the so-called sectatores Simplicii.\r\n\r\nDespite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, \u201cSimplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima\u201d, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: \u201cAs no other scholar apparently shares Hadot\u2019s view, there is no need for further polemics\u201d (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius\u2019 circles, that it represents \u201can original and personal engagement with Aristotle\u2019s text\u201d (p. 4), and that the commentator \u201cuses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text\u201d (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: \u201cModern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts \u2018to set right\u2019 a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures\u201d (p. 7).\r\n\r\nThe manuscript basis of S.\u2019s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck\u2019s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: \u201cHayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina\u201d (p. 149). A concise list of S.\u2019s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume.\r\n\r\nS.\u2019s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6\u201313. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (\u201cThat also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...\u201d, p. 101). The volume\u2019s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius\u2019 Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists\u2019 appropriation and transmission of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius\u2019 text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages\u2014not the last paragraphs of Physics 4\u2014that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of \u201ctime\u201d to the \u201csoul.\u201d (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he\u2014like contemporary philosophers\u2014turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time\u2014and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity\u2014would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3.\r\n\r\nThere is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body\u2014sexuality, and so on\u2014in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that \u201cthe heart\u201d is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas \u201cif the object is pleasant, some other part\u201d is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius\u2019 gloss: \u201cThe heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (\u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd)\u201d (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle\u2019s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: \u201cThe intellect is not wholly master (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) of the movement of the living being\u201d (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine\u2019s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus\u2019 refusal of a disciple who was \u201cpursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2),\u201d as Damascius reports?\r\n\r\nThe early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Ps.-Simplicius\u2019 reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access\u2014in conscientious English and in full\u2014to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a \u201cPlatonic succession\u201d in Athens. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1294,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6–13.) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | The Classical Review |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 436-437 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Van Dusen, David |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as “he who made the great Comment.” But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by émigrés from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy—the so-called sectatores Simplicii. Despite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, “Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima”, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: “As no other scholar apparently shares Hadot’s view, there is no need for further polemics” (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius’ circles, that it represents “an original and personal engagement with Aristotle’s text” (p. 4), and that the commentator “uses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text” (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: “Modern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts ‘to set right’ a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures” (p. 7). The manuscript basis of S.’s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck’s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: “Hayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina” (p. 149). A concise list of S.’s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume. S.’s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6–13. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (“That also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...”, p. 101). The volume’s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius’ Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists’ appropriation and transmission of Aristotle. Ps.-Simplicius’ text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages—not the last paragraphs of Physics 4—that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of “time” to the “soul.” (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he—like contemporary philosophers—turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time—and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity—would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3. There is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius’ commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body—sexuality, and so on—in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that “the heart” is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas “if the object is pleasant, some other part” is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius’ gloss: “The heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (γεννητικὰ μόρια) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (ἀφροδισιαστικῶν ἡδονῶν)” (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle’s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: “The intellect is not wholly master (οὐ τὸ ὅλον κύριος) of the movement of the living being” (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine’s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus’ refusal of a disciple who was “pursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (τὰς ὑπογαστρίους ἡδονάς),” as Damascius reports? The early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not “the Commentator on Aristotle’s De Anima III.” Ps.-Simplicius’ reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access—in conscientious English and in full—to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a “Platonic succession” in Athens. [the entire review] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1294","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1294,"authors_free":[{"id":1884,"entry_id":1294,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":74,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Van Dusen, David","free_first_name":"David","free_last_name":"Van Dusen","norm_person":{"id":74,"first_name":"David ","last_name":"Van Dusen","full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1066385637","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)","main_title":{"title":"Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"},"abstract":"In Inferno IV, when Dante catches sight of him in a mild foyer to the spiraling pit of hell, Averroes is simply described as \u201che who made the great Comment.\u201d But in Convivio IV, the only other place where Dante references him, Averroes is specifically \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Dante wrote this in the first decade of the fourteenth century, when Averroes was still, in effect, the commentator on De Anima 3. But by the last decades of the fifteenth century, a Simplicius commentary on the De Anima was being circulated in Italy by \u00e9migr\u00e9s from Constantinople. This commentary rapidly exerted an influence on figures like Pico della Mirandola and Agostino Nifo. It saw its first Greek edition in Venice in 1527, with a complete Latin translation appearing in 1543, also in Venice. As its first translator pointed out in his prefatory letter, Averroes now had a contender in this De Anima commentary. The title of a 1553 Latin translation left no doubt: Commentaria Simplicii Profundissimi & Acutissimi Philosophi in Tres Libros De Anima Aristotelis. By the end of the sixteenth century, this commentary had inspired a vocal coterie in Italy\u2014the so-called sectatores Simplicii.\r\n\r\nDespite the fervor of these sectatores Simplicii, there is now a stable consensus that their De Anima commentary is pseudo-Simplician. S. has long been convinced that the work should be attributed to Priscian of Lydia; in this, he is preceded by Francesco Piccolomini, a sixteenth-century opponent of the simpliciani, who also put Priscian forward as the commentator. I. Hadot fiercely criticized this re-attribution in a 2002 article in Mnemosyne, \u201cSimplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima\u201d, and S. refers to the dispute in his introduction. He is sanguine: \u201cAs no other scholar apparently shares Hadot\u2019s view, there is no need for further polemics\u201d (p. 32 n. 6). Regardless of attribution, it is agreed that this De Anima commentary originated in Simplicius\u2019 circles, that it represents \u201can original and personal engagement with Aristotle\u2019s text\u201d (p. 4), and that the commentator \u201cuses various philological strategies to make sense of an obscure text\u201d (p. 7). On this last point, S. is effusive: \u201cModern commentators could learn with profit from his attempts \u2018to set right\u2019 a difficult text ...without intervening with conjectures\u201d (p. 7).\r\n\r\nThe manuscript basis of S.\u2019s translation is broader than that of M. Hayduck\u2019s semi-critical Greek edition (1882), which has been faulted for collating only a single fourteenth-century manuscript (Laurentianus 85.21) and a single sixteenth-century edition of the commentary (Aldina). In preparing his translation, S. consulted another fourteenth-century manuscript (which shows emendations and annotations by Cardinal Bessarion) and a mid-fifteenth-century manuscript. Nevertheless, he is generous: \u201cHayduck was basically right: it is indeed possible to constitute a critical text with the Laurentianus and the Aldina\u201d (p. 149). A concise list of S.\u2019s proposed corrections to the Greek and reconstructions of outstanding lacunae is included at the back of the volume.\r\n\r\nS.\u2019s is the final volume of the first-ever English translation of this De Anima commentary and gives us ps.-Simplicius on De Anima 3.6\u201313. The translation is nuanced and reliable, though at places the syntax could be smoothed out (\u201cThat also oysters have maturity and decline, all agree ...\u201d, p. 101). The volume\u2019s apparatus, credited to Arnis Ritups, is ample. And while ps.-Simplicius has never had English-speaking sectaries, his De Anima commentary was cited once by Bishop Berkeley and repeatedly by Lord Monboddo in the eighteenth century, while Thomas Taylor incorporated excerpts into the notes to his 1808 English translation of De Anima. In short, ps.-Simplicius\u2019 Greek commentary has a place in the modern British reception of De Anima. The present translation should similarly inform contemporary work on De Anima and the Neoplatonists\u2019 appropriation and transmission of Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPs.-Simplicius\u2019 text is, of course, too dense to reprise here, but there is much of interest in his negotiation of time-statements in the last pages of De Anima, since it is in these pages\u2014not the last paragraphs of Physics 4\u2014that Aristotle investigates the problematic link of \u201ctime\u201d to the \u201csoul.\u201d (And when Plotinus takes up the question of time in Enneads 3.7, he\u2014like contemporary philosophers\u2014turns to Physics 4, not De Anima 3.) Those interested in Neoplatonic conceptions of time\u2014and, more generally, in the concept of time in Late Antiquity\u2014would do well to consult this commentary and the other surviving Greek commentaries on De Anima 3.\r\n\r\nThere is a single, colorful passage that indicates how ps.-Simplicius\u2019 commentary on the soul also opens onto the terrain of the body\u2014sexuality, and so on\u2014in Late Antiquity. In De Anima 3.9, Aristotle writes that \u201cthe heart\u201d is moved when we think of menacing things, whereas \u201cif the object is pleasant, some other part\u201d is moved. It is a pleasure, then, to see ps.-Simplicius\u2019 gloss: \u201cThe heart, for instance, may be set in movement among fearful things, and the generative organs (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f70 \u03bc\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1) upon the thought of sexual pleasure (\u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd)\u201d (p. 102). This is doubtless the sense of Aristotle\u2019s euphemistic text, and ps.-Simplicius sees the deeper import of sexual excitation with perfect clarity: \u201cThe intellect is not wholly master (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f45\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2) of the movement of the living being\u201d (p. 102). How far removed are we here from Augustine\u2019s discussion of post-paradisiacal arousal in City of God against the Pagans? Or from Proclus\u2019 refusal of a disciple who was \u201cpursuing philosophy, but at the same time devoting his life to the pleasures below the belly (\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f21\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03ac\u03c2),\u201d as Damascius reports?\r\n\r\nThe early modern sectatores Simplicii likely misattributed their De Anima commentary, but in this, they were correct: Averroes is not \u201cthe Commentator on Aristotle\u2019s De Anima III.\u201d Ps.-Simplicius\u2019 reading of the book is still challenging and, at places, suddenly illuminating. And it is no small thing for us to now have access\u2014in conscientious English and in full\u2014to this methodical, lexically sensitive commentary on the soul from the immediate circle of the last representatives of a \u201cPlatonic succession\u201d in Athens. [the entire review]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PvqFfr47EAUaMIW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":74,"full_name":"Van Dusen, David ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1294,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Classical Review","volume":"64","issue":"2","pages":"436-437"}},"sort":["Pseudo-Simplicius (Review on Simplicius\u2019: On Aristotle On the Soul 3.6\u201313.)"]}