Simplicius

First published Wed Jun 3, 2020

Simplicius of Cilicia (ca. 480–560 CE), roughly a contemporaryof John Philoponus, is without doubt the most important Neoplatoniccommentator on Aristotle and one of the two most influential exegeteswithin the Aristotelian tradition, along with Alexander of Aphrodisias(around 200 CE). Simplicius’ works are an unmatched source forthe intellectual traditions that preceded him: Presocratic, Platonic,and especially the Peripatetic tradition. He is also an independentthinker in his own right, with a coherent philosophical agenda. Bestknown for his tendency to harmonise Plato and Aristotle, henevertheless criticised Aristotle on several occasions and consideredhimself a loyal follower of Plato. Writing in an age when Christianitywas the dominant religious and political view, Simplicius aimed toshow that the Hellenic tradition is not only much older, but also morevenerable and more coherent than the Christian tradition. Unimpressedby charges of alleged contradictions among Greek philosophers,Simplicius repeatedly proclaimed that “the ancient wisdom(palaia philosophia) remains unrefuted” (InPhys. 77.11). It is also noteworthy that, like Proclus and otherNeoplatonists, Simplicius presents himself as a thinker for whomphilosophy and theology form a complete unity. As has frequently beenobserved, Simplicius’ works, despite their scholarly outlook,have an important spiritual dimension (see§5).

Simplicius’ commentaries have only recently been studied with aneye to his own philosophical views. He was long considered a meresource for Greek philosophy, and, as noted by Baltussen (2010: 714),

Simplicius’ importance as a source for ancient Greek philosophyand science has long overshadowed his contributions as an independentthinker.

Nineteenth-centuryQuellenforschung was especially interestedin hisCommentary on the Physics, which was edited in twovolumes (Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuorpriores/quattuor posteriores, comprising almost 1500 pages) byHermann Diels; this commentary served as the basis for Diels’edition of theDoxographi Graeci (GreekDoxographers), which includes the main doctrines on naturalphilosophy according to ancient doxographical compendia.

One of the aims of this entry is to emphasise that Simplicius’writings have much more to offer than a mere doxography of hispredecessors—but always bearing in mind that it is only possibleto appreciate how Simplicius arranges and interprets the material athis disposal by duly attending to his Neoplatonic agenda.

1. Life and Works

Not much is known about Simplicius’ life. InHistoriesII, 30.1 [Keydell], Agathias informs usthat Simplicius was born in Cilicia (south coastal region of AsiaMinor; today southern Turkey, north to northeast of the islandCyprus). According to Simplicius’ own commentaries, he waseducated in Alexandria by Ammonius, son of Hermias (In Cael.271.19), and in Athens by Damascius (In Phys. 601.19). Hence,he refers to Proclus as “teacher of my teachers” (InPhys. 611.11–12; 795.4–5) and “successor ofPlato (diadochos, i.e., head of the school) who lived shortlybefore me” (In Cael. 640.24–25). The followingtext from Simplicius’Commentary on the Physicsillustrates well the important role that Proclus played in thetradition of Athenian Neoplatonism:

All the philosophers after Proclus and down to my time, more or less,followed Proclus not only on this detail, but in all the other dogmas,except for Asclepiodorus, Proclus’ most gifted student, and ourDamascius. The former because of his immense talent, took pleasure ininnovating in doctrinal matters, whereas Damascius, because of hislove of work and his sympathy for Iamblichus, was not afraid toreconsider many of Proclus’ dogmas. (Simplicius,InPhys. 795.11–17, translated by I. Hadot and M. Chase, in I.Hadot 2015: 126 n. 223

Several passages in Simplicius’ commentaries also testify to thecrucial role that Iamblichus’ philosophy and exegesis played forhim (see§1 and§5 in the supplement on “The Commentaries of Simplicius”). Simplicius’ controversy with the Christian commentatorPhiloponus, who taught in Alexandria, regarding whether the world wascreated in time (see§3 in the supplement on “The Commentaries of Simplicius”) is well known. However, it seems that they never met personally(“[I] feel no hostility against this man whom, to my knowledge,I have never seen”;In Cael. 26.18–19, translatedby C. Wildberg).

In 529, a year that some historians have considered the end ofAntiquity, emperor Justinian ordered that “no one was any longerallowed to teach philosophy and astronomy” (this is oftenreferred to as the closure of the Platonic Academy; for details andfurther literature see Goulet & Coda 2016: 344). It is assumedthat this edict mainly targeted non-Christian philosophers such asNeoplatonists and Manichaeans. Following this prohibition, but notimmediately, Simplicius travelled with six other Neoplatonicphilosophers under the lead of Damascius to the court of the PersianKing Chosroes, who had only come to power in Ctesiphon in 531.Disappointed by their experience in Persia—the historianAgathias suggests that the philosophers at first considered Chosroes akind of ideal Platonic philosopher king—and protected by a peacetreaty between Persia and Rome in 532, the philosophers left thecountry, apparently several months after their arrival. Where theseven went after that is still a matter of debate. The treaty says,inter alia, that

these men should be allowed to return to their own country and livethere henceforth in safety, without being forced to adopt opinionswhich they did not hold, or to change their own faith. (translated byA. Cameron 1969/1970: 169)

Damascius recorded that he returned in 538 to his home country ofSyria (Hoffmann 1994: 590–591). Did the others follow him, ordid they return to Athens, Syria, or Harran (ancient Carrhae, in thenorth of Mesopotamia, close to the Syrian border)? This question hasnot been satisfactorily answered (for the ongoing discussion, seeGoulet & Coda 2016: 343–346; Watts 2005: 290–298).However, it seems clear that, in order to write hiscommentaries—which, as most scholars assume, were composed afterreturning from Chosroes’ court (I. Hadot 2014:135)—Simplicius needed quite an extensive library. Therefore, hecould only have returned to a place that provided such a library.

Simplicius wrote four commentaries that survive today (onEpictetus’Handbook and Aristotle’sCategories,Physics, andDe Caelo). It isdebatable whether, as univocally attested by the all manuscripts,Simplicius is also the author of a fifth commentary, onAristotle’sDe anima. Although there are several otherworks that he might have written, these do not include anycommentaries on Plato aside from one work on thePhaedo(Goulet & Coda 2016: 361–364, 390–394; seeInCael. 369.4–6 andIn Epict. I, 350–354[Hadot]). As is discussed in the supplementThe Commentaries of Simplicius, it is difficult to determine the order and periods in which Simplicius composed his commentaries.

Although there are no extant commentaries on Plato that are known tocome from Simplicius’ hand, Simplicius’ readers willnotice his intimate familiarity with and highest esteem for Plato.Simplicius’ commentaries constitute a rich source for Platonicphilosophy, and he is well known for his tendency to harmonise Platoand Aristotle (see§6). His work continues a tendency, probably initiated by Porphyry, tomake Plato’s pupil an integral part of the Platonic tradition,reading Aristotle through Platonic—or ratherNeoplatonic—lenses. Simplicius frequently chooses a Platonicdialogue in order to compare Plato’s and Aristotle’sphilosophy in a specific domain by way of contrast—for example,when he comments on thePhysics and theDe Caelo,where theTimaeus is always at hand. TheSophist andhis the doctrine of the highest kinds (megista genê)play an important role in Simplicius’ commentary on theCategories (cf. already in Plotinus VI 1–3[42–44]). It should also be noted that Iamblichus’Neoplatonic psychology, which can be considered a systematisation ofPlato’s views, lies in the background throughouttheCommentary on the De anima. When Simplicius findsreferences to Eleatic philosophy in Aristotle (especially inPhysics I), theSophist andParmenides alsofigure prominently.

It is also important to identify Simplicius’ purpose andintended audience in writing his compendious exegetical works. Giventhe sheer size of the commentaries and their argumentative structure,which at times is rather complex, it is difficult to imagine thatSimplicius is aiming at students. Moreover, given the uneven length ofthe exegeses of specificlemmata and the considerable numberof so-called digressions (see§2), it is not clear how a teacher could organise the material in thecommentaries for a series of lessons. To be suitable for theclassroom, Simplicius’ style would have needed to be much moredidactic and elementary. Although Baltussen (2010: 717) maintains that

Simplicius writes mostly for a student audience and that his works areintended to be read (In Cael. 377.32, 653.9;InPhys. 111.17, 762.29),

this seems unlikely. Rather, his underlying incentive seems to be topreserve as much original material (from Aristotle, his predecessors,and his commentators) as possible and to present it in a way thatbrings the unity of the Hellenic tradition to the fore. This wouldexplain why Simplicius continuously reminds his readers not only ofthe harmony (sumphônia) between Plato and Aristotle,with Aristotle as a loyal member of the Platonic tradition, but alsothe continuity of Aristotle with the Presocratics, especially thePythagoreans and the Eleatics. There are several indications inSimplicius’ collective text that he is addressing readers of“considerable sophistication” (Bowen 2013: 5) and that thetarget audience, as should be suspected given his use of the firstperson plural, is

contemporary Platonists in some community (to which he did or did notbelong) or […] readers imagined to be of like mind in acounterfactual present. (2013: 5)

This fully accords with the view that Simplicius probably did notteach in any school and that when he wrote his commentaries, there wastherefore no philosophical curriculum. As Golitsis (2018: 95) hasconvincingly suggested,

[T]here was no place where they [sc. the Platonic philosophers] couldbe trained […]. Simplicius invites them to learn by themselvesor, if possible, in groups. (seeIn Cat. 7.33–8.2)

What makes Simplicius’ commentaries a unique source for thehistory of philosophy before him is the fact that he preserved so muchmaterial from his predecessors, often in verbatim quotations:

[…] Simplicius, clearly aware of the fact that the works ofmany philosophers earlier, contemporary with, and later than Aristotlewere in danger of disappearing made a point of quoting from them atlength. And so he has often preserved for us texts and information notextant elsewhere. Suffice it to mention, by way of example, thefragments of Anaximander, Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus, Empedocles,Anaxagoras, Theophrastus (especially hisHistory ofPhilosophy orPhysikôn Doxai), Eudemus (especiallyhisHistory of Geometry), Xenocrates, Epicurus, The Stoics,Porphyry, etc. It is noteworthy that in the case of the PresocraticsSimplicius alone has preserved at least two thirds of all the verbatimquotations. (Tarán 1987b: 247)

2. Simplicius as a Commentator: General Remarks

In his introduction to theCommentary on the Categories,Simplicius provides a neat characterisation of the good commentator(axion exêgêtên) on Aristotle (andPlato):

The worthy exegete of Aristotle’s writings must not fall whollyshort of the latter’s greatness of intellect(megalonoia). He must also have experience of everything thePhilosopher has written, and must be an expert(epistemôn) of Aristotle’s customary use oflanguage (sunêtheia). His judgement must be impartial(adekaston), so that he may neither, out of misplaced zeal,seek to prove something well said to be unsatisfactory, nor, if somepoint should require attention, should he obstinately persist intrying to demonstrate that [Aristotle] is always and everywhereinfallible, as if he had enrolled himself in the Philosopher’sschool. [The good exegete] must, I believe, not convict thephilosophers of discordance (diaphônia) by looking onlyat the letter (lexis) of what [Aristotle] says against Plato;but he must look towards the spirit (nous), and track down(anikhneuein) the harmony (sumphônia) whichreigns between them on the majority of points. (Simplicius,InCat. 7.23–32, translated by M. Chase, slightlymodified)

This is certainly one of the most interesting passages for thosetrying to understand the Simplicius’ view of the role of thecommentator. The passage can, with caution, be considered a kind ofself-portrait of the Neoplatonic commentator at work, a glimpse intohis workshop, as it were. The good commentator must (1) be able tounderstand and follow Aristotle’s arguments (“greatness ofintellect”). He must (2) have read all of Aristotle’sworks and must know his terminology and ways of expressing himself(“customary use of language”). This is required in orderto explain “Aristotle by means of Aristotle” (see[Pseudo-?]Simplicius,In de Anima 1.14–15, andElias/David,In Cat. 123.7–11) and show that he doesnot contradict himself. The good commentator must also (3) beimpartial, that is, not openly polemical against Aristotle and merelyscoring points, but at the same time not an uncritical enthusiast.Simplicius illustrates this elsewhere with his well-known saying,“amicus Plato vel Aristoteles, sed magis amicaveritas” (“Plato or Aristotle are dear to me, butmuch dearer is the truth”; see Tarán 1984 andInCael. 301.19–21 [about Alexander]). In other words, it iscertainly legitimate to criticise Aristotle. But things are differentwith respect to Plato, because it seems that Simplicius nevercriticised him. Finally, the good commentator must (4) strive forharmony in most cases, by means of a distinction between thesuperficial sense of a text (lexis) and its true or deepermeaning (nous).

In order to forge a clearer profile of the commentator, it will beuseful to compare him to other Aristotelian commentators, such asAlexander of Aphrodisias, Iamblichus, David, and Elias. TheNeoplatonists certainly did not consider Alexander to be an impartialcommentator on Aristotle. Rather, Simplicius often treats him assomeone who stands in firm opposition to the harmony of Plato andAristotle. As good a text as any to characterise Alexander’sattitude towards Aristotle can be found in the opening words of hisDe anima:

Just as I have great reverence for Aristotle’s works on othersubjects, since I find more truth in the views passed down from himthan in what others have claimed, I regard what he states in histheory of the soul in the same way as well. I will therefore havefulfilled my aim if I can set out his claims about the soul as clearlyas possible and offer suitable arguments to show how each of them iswell formulated. (Alexander,De anima 2.4–9 [Bruns],translated by V. Caston)

On the other hand, the Neoplatonists viewed Iamblichus as someone whobrought Plato and Aristotle too close together. A text from Philoponuspoints to interpreters who argued that the two even agreed on thenature of universals:

Thus, also Proclus plainly and openly agrees with us about thedifference of the two philosophers [sc. as regards the status ofuniversals], or rather he has demonstrated it from the words/writingsof Aristotle himself. From this one can only wonder about theovershooting amount of shamelessness among those who try to show thatAristotle and Plato did agree also in this point. (Philoponus,Deaeternitate mundi 32.8–13 [Rabe], trans. by author)

It is very likely that Iamblichus was among these interpreters. Weknow from elsewhere that he even saw agreement regarding the theory ofForms (Elias/David,In Cat. 123.1–3). Along the samelines, Simplicius seems to have reconciled Aristotle’scomparison of the soul with an empty writing tablet (De animaIII 4, 429b31–430a2) and Plato’s theory of innateknowledge (de Haas 2000, 169–170).

Was Simplicius impartial towards Plato? This is insisted upon, forinstance, by Elias/David (In Cat. 122.27–32), but not,at least not explicitly, by Simplicius. As noted above, Simplicius isprepared to criticise Aristotle time and again (for instance, in hisdigression on place [topos]), but he never seems to criticisePlato. For Simplicius, Plato is the one who brought the truth tolight, the explainer or interpreter of the truth (ho têsalêtheias exêgêtês,In Cael.131.1), but Aristotle is never granted such an honorary title (cf.Syrianus’ and Proclus’ distinction between a “divinePlato”and a (merely) “daimonic/semi-divineAristotle”). Therefore, one may surmise that Plato was notsubject to the impartiality requirement, since he was, compared to allother representatives of the ancient philosophical tradition (hoipalaioi), somehow closest to the truth.

3. The Decisive Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias

If one were to name a single commentator apart from Simplicius’Neoplatonic sources (esp. Porphyry and Iamblichus) who mostly stronglyshaped his commentaries, it would undoubtedly be Alexander ofAphrodisias (around 200 CE):

[It is] profitable for those who choose to understand and explainAristotle’s thought by way of Alexander’s commentaries, toexamine what he said. (Simplicius,In Cael. 297.8–10,translated by J. Hankinson)

Baltussen used this telling quotation to preface the chapter onAlexander of Aphrodisias in his monograph on Simplicius (2008: 107).It illustrates rather well that Simplicius by no means blindlyfollowed “the commentator” (hoexêgêtês), as he calls him (In Phys.1170.2,In Cael. 121.12 and 700.9), but was eager tocarefully examine what Alexander had to say. It is known, forinstance, that Simplicius had direct access to Alexander’scommentaries on thePhysics, theHeavens, and theCategories. All of these are now lost, but a good deal can bereconstructed based on Simplicius’ testimony (see the overviewin Kupreeva [2018: 387-388 and 443]). It can even be said without exaggeration thatlarge parts of Simplicius’ oeuvre are, in fact, extendedconversations with “Aristotle’s most famous exegete”(Baltussen 2016: 1). While Simplicius owes much to Alexander, hisattitude towards him is ambiguous and comparable to how Syrianus dealswith Alexander’sCommentary on the Metaphysics.Syrianus focuses especially on those passages where Aristotle attacksPythagorean-Platonic metaphysics (esp. in books 13 and 14 of theMetaphysics), but in other cases, Alexander’s commentssuffice (O’Meara & Dillon 2008: 5). In other words,Alexander’s comments generally have great value; he is the moregenuine (gnêsiôteros) commentator on Aristotle(In Phys. 80.15–16), especially as far as thePeripatetic tradition is concerned. Moreover, while Aristotle is themost genuine disciple of Plato (gnêsiôtatos),Alexander is the “most careful of Aristotle’spartisans” (epimelestatos spoudastês,InCael. 378.20–22, borrowing the translation fromMueller).

On the other hand, Alexander of Aphrodisias can also be a stumblingblock for integrating Aristotle into the Platonic tradition. This isreflected in several passages where Simplicius remarks onAlexander’s way of explaining Aristotle and, more specifically,his attitude towards Plato. For while Simplicius as a rule tries toexplain away critical remarks that Aristotle aimed at his teacher, forinstance, via the distinction between the superficial meaning of atext (lexis,to phainomenon) and its real purpose(dianoia,nous), Alexander always sides withAristotle against Plato:

It is my opinion that Alexander of Aphrodisias obviously understandsthe words of Aristotle well on other occasions—and does sobetter than the other Peripatetics, but, in the case of the thingswhich Aristotle says concerning Plato, he does not seem to me to bearin mind that Aristotle’s counter-arguments are directed at thesurface import of Plato’s statements (pros tophainomenon). But, contesting Plato frivolously(kakoscholôs) in a way, he tries not only, as Aristotlealso does, to refute the surface import of what Plato says, takingsimpler <people> into consideration, but he also attacks theideas (tas ennoias) of the divine Plato and tries to drawconsequences from what Plato says, frequently not even attending tothe surface import.
Consequently I, setting out the truth, which is dear to god and toAristotle, will here try to do a careful investigation, puttingforward the things which Alexander says are the opinions of Platoabout the motion of the soul. I do this because of those who deal withhis words in a more superficial way and dare to take from them in away which is hostile to the views of Plato, which is the same as tosay hostile to the opinions of Aristotle and to divine truth.(Simplicius,In Cael. 377.20–34, translated by I.Mueller)
But Alexander von Aphrodisias does not understand Plato’sdoctrines as Aristotle understood them, nor does he accept that theirviews are in agreement (sumphônia) […].(Simplicius,In Cael. 297.1–4, translated by R. J.Hankinson)
I have said these things against Alexander for, while I respect theman and wish him well, I think that honouring the truth the more isdear to him too. (Simplicius,In Cael. 301.19–21,translated by R. J. Hankinson)
But Alexander, although he is accustomed to drag in Plato even wherehe is quite irrelevant, for some reason has here forgotten Platoinstead. (Simplicius,In Phys. 560.11–13, translated byJ. O. Urmson)

4. How to Comment on Aristotle as a Neoplatonist?

The Neoplatonic commentaries of late Antiquity represent rathersophisticated readings of Plato and Aristotle, integrating a richprehistory of exegesis and philosophical debate, but also structuredaccording to certain well-defined rules and methods. Since Simpliciuscomes almost at the end of this tradition, his commentaries are also arepository from which such constituent parts of Platonic exegeticalpractices can be reconstructed. Generally speaking, both ancient andmedieval commentators share a nondevelopmentalist approach to theirauthors and treat single works as part of a greater philosophicalwhole or system. Simplicius’ main aim is to clarify theAristotelian text, explain Aristotle by means of his own writings, anddemonstrate the harmony of Plato, Aristotle and older pre-Socratictraditions.

Several elements are characteristic of Simplicius’ commentaries.All are lemmatised, that is, Aristotle’s (or Epictetus’)text is divided into smaller sections of text which are then commentedupon, and the commentaries are introduced with prologues of varyinglengths (see below for more details). The comments on a single lemmaare sometimes subdivided into two sections, one which mainly commentson the philosophical content (theôria) and one whichcomments on single expressions or words (lexis). Such adistinction goes back to Proclus (Festugière 1963 [1971]).Since the commentaries are probably not written for teaching purposes(see§1), they are not structured according to “lessons”(praxeis), as was the usual practice in the Alexandrianschool after Ammonius. Digressions or autonomous essays that interruptthe running commentary are also characteristic of Simplicius (seeGolitsis 2008a and§2.3 in the supplement “The Commentaries of Simplicius”). Like Aristotle, Simplicius frequently integrates longer doxographies.At times, he approaches philosophical issues through the method of“difficulties and solutions” (aporiai kailuseis), which can frequently be found in Damascius,Simplicius’ teacher, and ultimately goes back to Aristotle (cf.Metaphysics Beta, with its long list ofaporiai).From Iamblichus, Simplicius borrows the policy that each ofPlato’s and Aristotle’s works should be explained by firstestablishing its main, overarching topics (skopos) which holdall the parts together:

For the goal (skopos), once correctly identified, defines andrectifies our thought (dianoia), so that we are not vainlytransported about in every direction, but refer everything to it.(Simplicius,In Cat. 8.13–15, translated by MichaelChase)

A common practice among later Neoplatonists was to preface theircommentaries with a series of questions or preliminary points(kephalaia) that should be settled before embarking on theexegesis proper (Hadot & Hoffmann 1990: 21–160; Hoffmann1998; Mansfeld 1994; for an excellent (English) summary see Hoffmann2006: 607–613). The form that theseprolegomena, asthey were called, take in Simplicius was introduced by theNeoplatonist Proclus (Elias/David,In Cat. 107.24–26).In the case of Aristotle’sCategories, for instance, wefind not only prolegomena suited for this very text (in seven points),but also a general introduction to Aristotle’s philosophy (inten points; for a useful overview see Hoffmann 2006: 607–613).This is because theCategories was the first ofAristotle’s texts to be read in the Neoplatonic school:

Since the Categories is the first book of Aristotle’s which weencounter, and Aristotle’s school—the so-calledPeripatetic—is one of the schools of philosophy, we ought firstto say how and in how many ways the philosophical schools receivedtheir appellations. Secondly, what is the division of the Aristotelianwritings, so that the class to which we shall assign the present workshall be clear. Third, whence should one begin [the study of]Aristotle’s writings? Fourth, what is the goal ofAristotle’s philosophy? Fifth, which things lead us towards thisgoal? Sixth, what is the form of the Aristotelian writings? Seventh,why did the Philosopher practise obscurity? Eighth, what must theexegete of accounts (logoi) such as these be like? Ninth,what kind of student should be accepted? Tenth, in the case of eachAristotelian treatise, how many main points (kephalaia)should be taken up, which are they, and for what reason? (Simplicius,In Cat. 3.18–29, translated by M. Chase)
Finally, the tenth of the matters set forth was: how many, and of whatkind, are the preliminary points (kephalaia) we mustarticulate prior to the study of each Aristotelian treatise. They arethe following: the goal (skopos), the usefulness (tochrêsimon), the reason for the title (aitiaepigraphês), its place in the order of reading (taxisanagnôseôs), whether the book is a genuine work ofthe Philosopher (gnêsion), its division into chapters(eis kephalaia dihairesis). It may also not be inappropriateto inquire under what part of his philosophy (meros têsphilosophias) the work is placed. (Simplicius,In Cat.8.9–13, translated by M. Chase)

Such an introductory scheme could be modified according to thespecific needs and exigencies of a text, so that there is not always adiscussion of all preliminary points:

It is to be noted, however, that all these things do not alwaysrequire articulation, for often, the usefulness becomes clear at thesame time as the goal, while the title is obvious to everyone, as [inthe case of] theOn the Soul. Authenticity, for its part,does not need to be established in every case, but in general onlywhen there is some starting-point for controversy. (Simplicius,InCat. 8.31–9.3, translated by M. Chase)

5. The Commentary as Spiritual Exercise

I offer these things as a hymn to You, Lord (despota),Creator (dêmiourgos) of the whole cosmos and of thesimple bodies in it, and to those who have been made by You, desiringto behold the greatness of Your works and proclaim it to the worthy sothat, thinking nothing mean or merely human about You, we might kneeldown to You because of the superiority which You have over all thethings created by You. (Simplicius,In Cael. 731.25–29,translated by I. Mueller)

Simplicius’Commentary on the Heavens ends with aprayer to the demiurge. In this prayer, the whole work is termed a“hymn” (humnos) to the creator god. Severalrecent studies have pointed out that the later Neoplatonistsconsidered theology and ritual (theurgy) an integral part of theirphilosophy. For instance, Proclus composed several hymns and beginshisCommentary on the Parmenides with a long prayer. Both heand his teacher Syrianus were eager to show that Plato was in harmonywith most ancient religious traditions such as the Orphics, thePythagoreans and the Chaldaean Oracles. Simplicius’ extantcommentaries all end with a prayer, the only exception being theCommentary on the De anima, where we find a small prayer atthe beginning of the work:

And now, under the Guide who is the cause of all souls and allreasoning, let us start upon the projected work. (Simplicius,Inde Anima 1.3–21, translated by J. O. Urmson, slightlymodified)

Surprisingly, and unexpectedly for readers familiar withAristotle’sPhysics andDe caelo, which areboth rather technical in character, Simplicius’ comments timeand again betray a deeply religious or spiritual mindset. In thetradition of Athenian Neoplatonism, where religious and ritualelements were crucial ingredients of philosophy, Simplicius’Platonisation of Aristotle, as it were, also entails aspiritualisation of Aristotle’s works.

This is where the ultimate usefulness (chrêsimon) ofSimplicius’ writings is located. Philippe Hoffmann hasdemonstrated this admirably:

The example of Simplicius’sCommentary on Aristotle’sPhysics is emblematic of the connection between learned exegesisand religion: the “usefulness” of physics, Simpliciusexplains, is to provoke the awakening in souls of the anagogical triadof Love, Truth, and Faith (to which is added a fourth term, Hope); andthe successive reading of thePhysics and theDeCaelo leads the soul of the philosopher-exegete and those of hisaudience (or of his readers) to a “union”(henôsis), through Faith and the “vitalsympathy” correlative with it, with the divine Heaven and withthe demiurgic intellect that produces the World. (Hoffmann 2006:599–600)

Within this text is a motif that may be called the ultimate goal(telos) of all ancient philosophical schools, but especiallyof the Platonic tradition, to wit, “assimilation to god” (Plato,Theaetetus 176b–c, trans. by author).The average Aristotlescholar today might find this far-fetched, to say the least. However,neither of Simplicius’ commentaries on natural philosophy was byany means a religious manifesto. Rather, they are both crammed withtechnical details and a vast knowledge of texts and philosophicalproblems. But to ignore this religious dimension would do injustice toSimplicius’ general approach to philosophy and exegesis, for inlate Antiquity, philosophy was considered a “way of life”(P. Hadot 1995) and always relatedto ethics and the ultimate goal of human life, i.e., purification,ascent, and salvation/deification of the soul:

If we take Simplicius at his word that the ‘study of physics[…] arouses us to marvel and magnify the maker of the cosmos',his commentaries onPhysics andOn the Heavens areindeed also a form of worship in which his ingenuity and respect forthe established tradition contribute to the general effort ofclarifying the interpreters of nature (and the interpreters of theinterpreters). In trying to defend the Platonist point of view incontradistinction to the Christian outlook he uses polemic to persuadeand refute, the comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytise. Hiscommentaries thus became one very elaborate protreptic and guide toAristotle's works. (Baltussen 2008: 195)

6. The Harmony of Plato and Aristotle and Christian Threads

[The good exegete] must, I believe, not convict the philosophers ofdiscordance (diaphônia) by looking only at the letter(lexis) of what [Aristotle] says against Plato; but he mustlook towards the spirit (nous), and track down(anikhneuein) the harmony (sumphônia) whichreigns between them on the majority of points. (Simplicius,InCat. 7.29–32, translated by M. Chase)

This programmatic statement from the introductory section to theCommentary on the Categories shows that the harmony of Platoand Aristotle was one of Simplicius’ top priorities as acommentator. As mentioned earlier, the ancient notion of harmony(sumphônia) did not entail a strict identity ofphilosophical views. Rather, it referred to positions that arereconcilable, compatible, or even complementary:

The text of the two philosophers can be in accord by beingcomplementary in a unified system, which is quite different from theirbeing in accord as to the very ideas they contain. (Golitsis 2018:72)

Neoplatonists frequently characterised Aristotle as the secretary ofnature, as it were, while Plato was the metaphysician par excellence(cf. Raphael’s “The School of Athens”). Each had hisown peculiar domain and his peculiar philosophical attitude, but onecould nevertheless speak of a harmony between the two approaches:

[Aristotle] always refuses to deviate from nature; on the contrary, heconsiders even things which are above nature according to theirrelation to nature, just as, by contrast, the divine Plato, accordingto Pythagorean usage, examines even natural things insofar as theyparticipate in the things above nature. (Simplicius,In Cat.6.27–30, translated by M. Chase)
One ought to know that Aristotle is always doing natural philosophywhen he does theology, while Plato is always doing theology when hedoes natural philosophy. (Elias/David,In Cat.120.30–121.4)
However, I think that one should also attend to the purpose(skopos) as well as at the words and recognise that thedifference (diaphora) between the two philosophers on thesequestions is not about things (pragmata) but about words:Plato rejects the ordinary use of words (sunêtheia) inthe name of precision, but Aristotle makes use of the ordinary use ofwords on the grounds that the truth is not at all harmed by this.(Simplicius,In Cael. 69.11–15, translated by I.Mueller)
Here, therefore, the difference (diaphora) between thephilosophers is not over a reality (pragma), but over a name(onoma), as it is in most cases. I think the reason often isthat Aristotle wishes to preserve linguistic usage and carries out hisarguments on the basis of what is evident to the senses, while Platooften scorns them and readily resorts to intellective theories.(Simplicius,In Phys. 1249.12–17, translated by I.Bodnár, M. Chase, and M. Share; cf. (Pseudo-?)Simplicius,In de Anima 28.12–13)

Certainly, one may wonder whether such a program does justice toeither Plato or Aristotle, although this issue is not relevant to thepresent discussion of Simplicius. Within the framework of LateNeoplatonism, it seems advisable to distinguish Simplicius fromSyrianus and Proclus, since both of the latter are much more explicitand polemical when it comes to reprimanding Aristotle for hiscriticism of Plato. On the other hand, while it is true thatSimplicius makes a great effort to reconcile the two philosophers,such a rapprochement could also be considered a Platonisation ofAristotle and a stealthy neutralisation of his at times anti-Platonicline of reasoning.

Be that as it may, it is nevertheless clear that there is a richpedigree in the history of the Platonic tradition regardingharmonisation. Simplicius continues and extends a program that wasinaugurated by his teacher Ammonius, and also before him by Porphyry,and it was afterwards continued in Alexandria by Hierocles andOlympiodorus, more or less along the same lines as Simplicius.Karamanolis (2018: 36) argues convincingly that Porphyry (and beforehim some Middle Platonists) had already considered Aristotle a crucialpart of the Platonic tradition:

[…] Porphyry wrote commentaries on works of Aristotle becausehe found these works to represent an elaboration on, and a developmentof, Plato’s philosophy. […] What Porphyry does deny isthat Aristotle contradicts the essence of Plato’s philosophicalviews when he articulates theories that are not in Plato, since thesemay be inspired from Plato or continue in some way Plato’sthinking on a given issue.

Scholars have remarked that Simplicius’ eagerness to harmonisePlato and Aristotle should be seen in the context of theNeoplatonist’s anti-Christian attitude and especially hispolemics against the Christian Platonist John Philoponus (Hoffmann2014: 286). After Christianity became the official state religion (in380 CE), it was ever more difficult for pagan philosophers to teachand practice their cultic rituals. This development culminated in thefamous edict of 529, commonly referred to as the closing of thePlatonic Academy (see§1). One of the main criticisms, made as early as the first Christianapologist Tertullian, was that Greek philosophers and their schoolswould constantly contradict each other, so that it was impossible tospeak of a unified intellectual tradition or heritage. In thisrespect, John Philoponus was particularly dangerous in criticising theHellenic tradition from within, and with an excellent knowledge of allof the relevant texts. If all of this weren’t bad enough, theChristian Platonist from Alexandria openly countered efforts towardharmonisation. Being a fervent champion of the creation of the worldin time (according to the Christian creed), Philoponus argues that oneof the most common arguments of the harmonisers—that Aristotlewould only criticise the apparent meaning of Plato’swords—is not valid. He even refers to it as a fiction(muthos), adding that if it were true, Aristotle would havesaid so explicitly:

From these passages we can most certainly see that Aristotle’srefutations of Plato are not directed at people who have wronglyunderstood Plato, which is a fiction created by some more recentcommentators out of embarrassment at the disagreement between the<two> philosophers, but rather constitute a rebuttal of thenotions of Plato himself. For, if Aristotle had not been attackingPlato’s own doctrine of the Forms but, as these commentatorsclaim, that of people who have misunderstood him, he would havespecified precisely this at the outset and not have refuted thedoctrine of the Forms generally and without qualification.(Philoponus,De aet. Mundi 29.2–13, translated by P.Golitsis 2018: 73)

Simplicius’ polemics with Philoponus in his commentaries on thePhysics andDe Caelo will be examined in more detailbelow.

Ammonius, pupil of Proclus was also an important predecessor forSimplicius. Ammonius taught in Alexandria (around the second half ofthe fifth century) and famously argued that Aristotle’s UnmovedMover is both a final and an efficient cause (Simplicius,InCael. 271.13–21 andIn Phys.1360.24–1363.24). Such a reading of Aristotle, which Proclusstill firmly opposes (In Parm. IV 842.20–27 [Steel],where he calls the Unmoved Moveragonos, i.e., not productiveor infertile; see also Tempelis 1998: 134 n. 609), was an importantstep in combining the demiurge in Plato’sTimaeus withAristotle’s self-thinking intellect (Metaphysics Lambda6–7). Simplicius welcomes Ammonius’ innovation and, notsurprisingly, refers to him with great approval (seeIn Phys.1362.11–16 and Golitsis 2017a).

But it should not be forgotten that there were also other threads toSimplicius’ approach of harmonising the Hellenic tradition andespecially of integrating Aristotle. AtIn Cael.297.1–6, he mentions some interpreters (tines) whobetrayed a hostile attitude towards Aristotle. It is likely that hemainly had Syrianus and Proclus in mind. Simplicius had to deal withsuch criticism with much more delicacy than the criticism coming fromPhiloponus. There is a telling passage inIn Cael.640.20–31, where Simplicius explains that Proclus has refutedAristotle’s criticism of Plato in theDe caelo in aspecial monograph (now lost; see Steel 2005 and Luna, Segonds, andEndress 2012: 1591–1596) in order to immediately remark that thecriticism was only apparent.

What are the different strategies Simplicius uses to harmonise Platoand Aristotle or to integrate the Presocratics and even earliertraditions (Chaldeans, Orphics) into the Platonic tradition? InPlatonic Theology I 4, Proclus discusses at length anexegetical device that seems to be comparable to the doctrine of the“four senses of scripture” (quattuor sensus sacraescripturae), well known from biblical exegesis. According toProclus, different hermeneutical methods may be applied to differenttexts, depending on the mode of their composition. From theperspective of the Neoplatonists, different authors or even schools ofthought had different ways of expressing themselves; this appliedmainly to traditions that were active or alleged to be active beforeSocrates and Plato: the Chaldeans, the Orphics, Homer (and Hesiod),the Presocratics (esp. Parmenides and Pythagoras, including thePseudo-Pythagorean tradition)—but also to Plato and Aristotle.Texts could be written “in riddles”, “asmyths”, “in symbols”, or “in images”,and they could be “inspired” or “dialectical”.At times, this entailed that these texts needed to be translated ordecoded in order to serve in philosophical debates. It goes withoutsaying that such presuppositions also granted a certain kind ofexegetical freedom to the interpreters. Plato himself, Proclusexplains, betrays at least four modes of expressing himself indifferent dialogues, while Aristotle was often considered tointentionally write in an obscure way for members of his school.Moreover, while Plato, according to Simplicius, “rejects theordinary use of words in the name of precision”, Aristotle“makes use of the ordinary use” (Simplicius,InCael. 69.11–15).

It is against this background that Simplicius’ attempt toharmonise the Greek tradition should be interpreted. Compared toProclus, Simplicius’ approach is less complex, and it is, infact, rather similar in principle. Regarding the Presocratics,Simplicius remarks that they frequently speak in riddles(ainigmatôdôs) and that Aristotle’scriticism of them is merely directed against their apparent meaning.What is more, we should keep in mind that they wrote before themethods of philosophical discourse and formal logic were firmlyestablished by Plato and Aristotle:

But since we will hear Aristotle too refuting the opinions of earlierphilosophers, and before Aristotle Plato seems to do this, and beforeboth of them Parmenides and Xenophanes, it should be known that thesepeople, being concerned for those who listen more superficially,refuted the apparent absurdity (to phainomenon atopon) intheir accounts, since the ancients were accustomed to express theirdoctrines in riddles (ainigmatôdôs). (Simplicius,In Phys. 36.25–31, translated by R. Barney and S.Menn)
[…] Eudemus bears witness to this when he says: ‘Someonemight be amazed at Parmenides for following these untrustworthyarguments and being deceived by things of this kind, but these mattershad not yet then been clarified. For neither did anyone refer to“[being spoken of] in many ways” but Plato was the firstto introduce “in two ways”, nor [did anyone speak of] the“in itself” or “the accidental”; and it seemsthat he [i.e., Parmenides] was indeed misled by these points. Thesehave been studied through the arguments and counter arguments, and thesyllogistic <figure>. For there was no agreement unless it wasseen to be necessary. But our predecessors made claims without proof.(Simplicius,In Phys. 120.6–12, translated by P. Hubyand C. C. W. Taylor)

Simplicius uses the same pattern of argument regardingAristotle’s criticism of Plato: Aristotle argues merely againstthe apparent meaning of Plato’s words (see, for instance,InCael. 352.27–28, 296.6–8 and 26–30, 377.20ff.). Pantelis Golitsis has rightly pointed out that such criticism hada “preventive” and “pedagogical” function forordinary, more superficial, and inexperienced readers who were proneto misunderstand Plato. This goes back, in part, to the NeoplatonistSyrianus (Golitsis 2018: 94). For instance, Golitsis points toInPhys. 821.27–29, where Simplicius explains that“Aristotle philosophised in a way which is more suited to themajority of people and because he was aware of their misunderstandings[…]” (translated by J. O. Urmson and P. Golitsis).Simplicius’ arguments are, as previously noted, indebted toAmmonius. Olympiodorus, Ammonius’ pupil in Alexandria, shows astrategy similar to Simplicius’ strategy. The only differencemay be that, as already noted, Simplicius never seems to disagree withPlato. Was the Alexandrian or the Ammonian school more liberal in thisrespect? Once again, it is interesting to compare Simplicius withOlympiodorus:

Olympiodorus follows Ammonius in emphasizing the harmony betweenAristotle and his master […]. He calls him a true disciple ofPlato (In Alc. 5.29–32). Whenever possible he resolvesapparent contradictions and says that in the rare instances whereAristotle diverges from Plato he is still indebted to him (InGorg. 41.9, 214.13–215.11). Olympiodorus is not blind tothe divergences, and in those cases he usually, though not always,agrees with Plato. (Opsomer 2010: 707)

7. Simplicius’ Legacy

In the Middle Ages and after, Simplicius was read by a wide range ofauthors, but to date no systematic study of his legacy has beenpublished. This final section presents only a limited selection ofevidence for his legacy. In the Latin West, the Dominican friarWilliam of Moerbeke (1215–1286) translated some ofSimplicius’ commentaries into Latin. This made them accessibleto readers such as Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, andmany others. Moerbeke finished translating theCommentary on theCategories in 1266 (Chase 2008: 12–17 and 20–24). Healso translated a small part of theCommentary on the DeCaelo, the so-calledfragmentum Toletanum, followed by afull translation of the commentary in 1271 (see Bossier 1987). Inaddition, there is a partial translation by Robert Grosseteste that isolder then the one by Moerbeke, but it is difficult to determine whoactually made use of it.

Regarding Moerbeke’s influence on Thomas, the latter seems tohave followed Simplicius in the way he conceives the history ofphilosophy and, more specifically, the relation between Plato andAristotle (see Hankey 2002):

The diversity of these two positions stems from this, that some, inorder to seek the truth about the nature of things, have proceededfrom intelligible reasons, and this was the particular characteristicof the Platonists. Some, however, have proceeded from sensible things,and this was the particular characteristic of the philosophy ofAristotle, as Simplicius says in his commentaryUpon theCategories. (Thomas Aquinas,De Spiritualibus creaturis3.40.275–282, as quoted in Hankey 2002: n. 46)

Moreover, Thomas must have considered Simplicius a rich source ofinformation about ancient philosophers and their doctrines andespecially about the Peripatetic tradition. Bossier (1987) and othershave suggested that Thomas might have used material from thepreviously mentionedfragmentum Toletanum in hisCommentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics (XII 8, onconcentric spheres and their different movers). There is no evidenceof an early Latin translation of the other commentaries, with thepossible exception of a small part of theCommentary on thePhysics, which also goes back to Robert Grosseteste (Mansion1956: 94).

The Arabic tradition is another important source of information aboutSimplicius (for a concise summary, see Goulet & Coda 2016:384–394; see also Vallat 2014a and 2014b and Gätje 1982).As in the Latin tradition, theCommentaries on theCategories and theDe anima seem to have primarilybeen read by scholars (in both Arabic and Syriac). However, there alsoappears to be some evidence for a lostCommentary on the FirstBook of Euclid (Goulet & Coda 2016: 390–394; I. Hadot2014, 39–53; R. Rashed 2005). Before Simplicius, Proclus hadalready commented on Euclid. Proclus’ commentary still exists,and so there is a question regarding Simplicius’ motivation forwriting a second commentary, and it may be that Simplicius’commentary was simply an augmented and revised version ofProclus’ commentary. Philosophers in the Arabic tradition, likethose in the Latin tradition, also used Simplicius to defend theharmony of Plato and Aristotle.

The Byzantine tradition is primarily relevant for the textualtransmission of Simplicius’ works. From the little that isknown, Byzantine scholars seem to have had a special interest in theCommentary on the Physics. One of the most importantmanuscripts conserving this commentary (Mosquensis Muz. 3649), notused by Hermann Diels in his CAG edition, was copied by the Byzantineprincess Theodora Palaiologina Rhaulaina (ca. 1240–1300; seeHarlfinger 1987). Simplicius’Commentary on the Physicswas used by Michael Psellus, Nicophorus Blemmydes (in hisIsagogical Epitome; Golitsis 2007), Georgios Pachymeres (inhis ownCommentary on the Physics, traditionally attributedto Psellus; Golitsis 2008b), Georgios Gemistius-Plethon, GeorgiosScholarius, and Theodorus of Gaza. Since there was a lively debateamong Byzantine philosophers on the relation between Plato andAristotle, it is very likely that Simplicius had an impact in thisrespect.

Interest in theCommentary on the De anima can also be tracedin the Renaissance, for instance, the attention paid to(Pseudo-?)Simplicius’ reading ofDe anima III 5 asregarding the human intellect only, and also his explanation of thekey notion ofentelecheia and his relation to Averroes’psychology (Nardi 1951; Salatowsky 2006; Blackwell 2011). Moreover,Renaissance philosophers, like scholars in Byzantium and the LatinWest, thought much about the relation between Plato and Aristotle,with some sharing Simplicius’ preference for harmony orconcordism and others opposing it. Thus, for example, ThomasAquinas’ view on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle was partlyinspired by passages from Simplicius (in William of Moerbeke’sLatin translation). Other than in the Middle Ages, we also find agrowing interest in hisCommentary on Epictetus’Handbook from the fifteenth century onwards, especially amongHumanists (P. Hadot 1987). Last, but not least, in hisLectures onthe History of Philosophy, G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) callsSimplicius “the most learned and acute of the Greek commentatorson Aristotle” (“der gelehrteste und scharfsinnigsteder griechischen Kommentatoren des Aristoteles”) andasserts that “we owe him much” (“wir verdankenihm Verdienstliches”).

Although much more could be said here about Simplicius’ legacy,suffice it to say the following. As mentioned in the introduction, hisCommentary on the Physics was the basis for Diels’fundamental studies on the Greek doxographers (Doxographigraeci) and the fragments of the Presocratic philosophers(Fragmente der Vorsokratiker). The reconstruction of thePeripatetic tradition also depends to a large extent on Simplicius(Falcon 2017 and Baltussen 2016). This is especially obvious in the work of Alexander of Aphrodisias, where substantial parts of lostcommentaries can be retrieved from Simplicius’ works (M. Rashed2011), but also in the case of less well-known figures such as Boethosof Sidon (Chiaradonna & Rashed forthcoming). Compared to HermannDiels and others, we now have a much better grasp of how Simpliciushandled his sources and how he portrayed the historical development ofGreek philosophy up to his time. Several recent studies have alsoprovided a clearer profile of Simplicius’ own philosophicalagenda. Nevertheless, considerable parts of his commentaries are stillrelatively unexplored, and it now seems to be a good time forcontemporary scholars to rediscover the Neoplatonist as an inspiringlate-ancient colleague in the joint venture of coming to terms withAristotle.

Bibliography

List of abbreviations

[In Cael.]In Aristotelis De Caelo commentaria,Johann Ludwig Heiberg (ed.)—Commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens
[In Cat.]In Aristotelis Categorias commentaria,Carolus Kalbfleisch (ed.)—Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories
[In de Anima]In libros Aristotelis de Animacommentaria, Michael Hayduck (ed.)—Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima
[In Epict.]Commentaria In EpictetiEncheiridion, Ilsetraut Hadot (ed.)—Commentary on Epictetus’ Handbook [the commentary is quoted here according to the number of the lemmata(including thepraefatio and theepilogus) and thepages and line numbers of Hadot’seditio maior (1996);the English translation by Brennan and Brittain 2002, only mentionsthe page numbers of Hadot’s edition and otherwise providesreferences to Dübner’s edition from 1840. In principle, itwould suffice to quote Hadot’s edition according to the lemmataand line number, but then it would be impossible to find thecorresponding passage in the English translation.]
[In Phys.]In Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuorpriores/posteriores, Hermann Diels (ed.)—Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics

Introductions, monographs, and collected volumes

Baltussen, Han, 2008,Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius:The Methodology of a Commentator, London: Duckworth.
–––, 2010, “Simplicius of Cilicia”,inThe Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity,Volume 2, Lloyd P. Gerson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, pp. 711–732. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521194846.010
–––, 2018, “§162. Simplikios”,inDie Philosophie der Antike, Christoph Riedweg, ChristophHorn, and Dietmar Wyrwa (eds.), (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeitund der Spätantike) (=Grundriss der Geschichte derPhilosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3), Basel:Schwabe, pp. 2060–2084.
Goulet, Richard and Elisa Coda, 2016, “Simplicius deCilicie”, inDictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques(Volume VI: De Sabinillus à Tyrsénos), Paris: CNRSÉditions, pp. 341–394.
Hadot, Ilsetraut, 1987,Simplicius, sa vie, son œuvre,sa survie: actes du colloque international de Paris 28 Sept. –1er Oct. 1985, (Peripatoi, 15), Berlin: de Gruyter.
–––, 1990, “The Life and Works ofSimplicius in Greek and Arabic Sources”, in AristotleTransformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence,Richard Sorabji (ed.), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp.275–304.
–––, 2014,Le néoplatonicienSimplicius à la lumière des recherches contemporaines:Un bilan critique, St. Augustin: Academia Verlag.
Hadot, Ilsetraut and Pierre Hadot, 2004,Apprendre àphilosopher dans l’Antiquité: L’enseignement du“Manuel d’Épictète” et son commentairenéoplatonicien, Paris: Librairie généralefrançaise.
Linguiti, Alessandro, 1988, “Studi recenti sulla vita el’opera di Simplicio”,Studi Classici eOrientali, 36: 331–346.
Praechter, Karl, 1927, “Simplicius (10)”, inPaulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band III A, Halbband 5, Silacenis–Sparsus, 204–213.

Editions and Translations of His Commentaries

On Aristotle’sOn the Heavens

Standard edition of the Greek

Simplicii in Aristotelis De caelo commentaria, JohannLudwig Heiberg (ed.), (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca [CAG] 7),Berlin 1894.

English

Simplicius,On Aristotle On the Heavens, multiplevolumes, (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bloomsbury(Duckworth prior to 2010)
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.1–4, Robert J. Hankinson(trans.), 2002.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.5–9, Robert J. Hankinson(trans.), 2004.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.10–12, Robert J.Hankinson (trans.), 2006.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.2–3, Ian Mueller(trans.), 2011.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 1.3–4, Ian Mueller (trans.),2011.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 2.1–9, Ian Mueller(trans.), 2004.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 2.10–14, Ian Mueller(trans.), 2005.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 3.1–7, Ian Mueller(trans.), 2009.
- On Aristotle On the Heavens 3.7–4.6, Ian Mueller(trans.), 2009.
Philoponus,Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, Christian Wildberg (trans.), (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. [Collection of fragments, most of which can be found in Simplicius’In cael.]
The Treatises of Aristotle On the Heavens, On generation andcorruption, and On meteors, translated from the Greek, with copiouselucidations, from the commentaries of Simplicius on the first, and ofOlympiodorus on the last of these treatises, Th. Taylor (trans.),London 1807; Somerset: ND Frome 2004.

On Aristotle’sCategories

Standard edition of the Greek

Simplicii in Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, CarolusKalbfleisch (ed.), (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca [CAG] 8),Berlin, 1907.

English

Simplicius,On Aristotle’s Categories, multiplevolumes, (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bloomsbury(Duckworth prior to 2010)
- On Aristotle’s Categories 1–4, Michael Chase(trans.), 2003.
- On Aristotle’s Categories 5–6, Frans A. J. deHaas and Barrie Fleet (trans.), 2001.
- On Aristotle’s Categories 7–8, Barrie Fleet,2002.
- On Aristotle’s Categories 9–15, RichardGaskin, 2000.

French

Simplicius,Commentaire sur les‹Catégories›. Traduction commentéesous la direction de I. Hadot. Fascicule I: Introduction,Première partie (p. 1–9, 3 Kalbfleisch), traduction dePh. Hoffmann, commentaire et notes à la traduction par I.Hadot, avec des appendices de P. Hadot et J.-P. Mahé, Leiden:Brill, 1990.
–––,Commentaire sur les‹Catégories›. Traduction commentéesous la direction de I. Hadot. Fascicule III: Préambule auxCatégories, Commentaire au premier chapitre desCatégories (p. 21–40, 13 Kalbfleisch), traduction de Ph.Hoffmann, avec la collaboration de I. Hadot, P. Hadot et C. Luna,commentaire et notes à la traduction par C. Luna, Leiden:Brill, 1990.
–––,Commentaire sur les‹Catégories› d’Aristote, Chapitres2–4. Traduction par Ph. Hoffmann, avec la collaboration deI. Hadot et P. Hadot, commentaire par C. Luna, Paris: Les BellesLettres, 2001.

On Aristotle’sOn the Soul

Standard edition of the Greek

Simplicii in libros Aristotelis De anima commentaria,Michael Hayduck (ed.), (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca [CAG] 11),Berlin, 1882.

English

Simplicius,On Aristotle On the Soul1.1–2.4, James O. Urmson (trans.), notes by Peter Lautner,(Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth, 1995.
–––,On Aristotle On the Soul 2.5–12, Carlos Steel (trans.), incollaboration with James O. Urmson, notes by Peter Lautner inPriscian: On Theophrastus On Sense-Perception, Pamela Huby(trans.), (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth,1997.
–––,On Aristotle On the Soul3.1–5, Hans J. Blumenthal (trans.), (Ancient Commentators onAristotle), London: 2000: Duckworth.
–––,On Aristotle On the Soul3.6–13, Carlos Steel (trans.), (Ancient Commentators onAristotle), London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

German

Priskian von Lydien (›Simplikios‹),Kommentar zuAristoteles’ De anima III, ausgewählt, eingeleitet,übersetzt und erläutert von M. Perkams, in H. Busche, and M.Perkams (eds.),Antike Interpretationen zur aristotelischen Lehrevom Geist, Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 547–675.

On Epictetus’Handbook

Standard edition of the Greek

Simplicius,Commentaire sur le Manueld’Epictète. Introduction et édition critiquedu texte grec par I. Hadot, Leiden, 1995. [Editio maior]
–––,Commentaire sur le Manueld’Epictète. I: Chapitres I–XXIX. Texteétabli et traduit par Ilsetraud Hadot, Paris, 2001. [CUF]. [Editiominor with French translation]

English

Simplicius,On Epictetus’ Handbook 1–26,Charles Brittain and Tad Brennan (trans.), (Ancient Commentators onAristotle), London: Duckworth, 2002.
–––,On Epictetus’ Handbook27–53, Tad Brennan and Charles Brittain (trans.), (AncientCommentators on Aristotle), London: Duckworth, 2002.
Epictetus, his morals, with Simplicius his comment, madeEnglish from the Greek, by G. Stanhope, London, 1694.

German

Simplicii Commentarius in Epicteti Enchiridion, aus demGriechischen übersetzt von J. G. Schulthess (= Bibliothek dergriechischen Philosophen, 1. Band). Zürich: Orell, Füssliund Co., 1778.
Simplikios’Commentar zu EpiktetosHandbuch, aus dem Griechischen in das Deutsche übertragenvon K. Enk. Wien: Beck, 1867.

On Aristotle’sPhysics

Standard edition of the Greek

Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuorpriores/posteriores commentaria, 2 volumes, Hermannus Diels(ed.), (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca [CAG] 9 and 10), Berlin,1882–1895.
Golitsis, Pantelis and Philippe Hoffmann, 2014, “Simpliciuset le ‘Lieu’: À propos d’une nouvelleédition duCorollarium de loco”,Revue DesÉtudes Grecques 127: 119–175. [New edition of theCorollary on place]

English

Simplicius,On Aristotle Physics, multiple volumes,(Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bloomsbury (Duckworthprior to 2010)
- On Aristotle Physics 1.1–2, R. Barney (trans.), St.Menn, forthcoming.
- On Aristotle Physics 1.3–4, Pamela Huby and C. C.W. Taylor (trans.), 2011.
- On Aristotle Physics 1.5–9, Han Baltussen, MichaelAtkinson, Michael Share, and Ian Mueller (trans.), 2012.
- On Aristotle Physics 2, Barrie Fleet (trans.), 1997.
- On Aristotle Physics 3, James O. Urmson (trans.), notes byPeter Lautner, 2002.
- On Aristotle Physics 4.1–5, 10–14, J. O.Urmson (trans.), 1992.
- On Aristotle Physics 5, James O. Urmson (trans.), notes byPeter Lautner, 1997.
- On Aristotle Physics 6, David Konstan (trans.),1989.
- On Aristotle Physics 7, Charles Hagen (trans.),1994.
- On Aristotle Physics 8.1–5, IstvánBodnár, Michael Chase, and Michael Share (trans.), 2012.
- On Aristotle Physics 8.6–10, Richard D. McKirahan(trans.), 2001.
–––,Corollaries on Place and Time, J.O. Urmson (trans.), annotated by Lucas Siorvanes, London: Duckworth,1992.

French

Simplicius,Commentaire sur la Physique d’Aristote. Livre ii, ch. 1-3, Introduction, traduction, notes et bibliographie par Alain Lernould, Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2019.

German

Sonderegger, E., 1982,Simplikios: Über Die Zeit. EinKommentar zum Corollarium de Tempore, (Hypomnemata, 70),Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [includes a translation of theCorollary on time]

Editions and Translations of other Ancient Authors

AgathiaeMyrinaei Historiarum libri quinque in Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Rudolf Keydell (ed.), Volume 2, (Series Berolinensis), Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, 1967.
Alexander of Aphrodisias,On the Soul, Part I: Soul as Form of the Body, Parts of the Soul, Nourishment, and Perception, Victor Caston (trans.), (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: Bristol Classical Press, 2012.
–––,Supplement to ‘On the Soul’, Robert W. Sharples (trans.), (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.
Eliae (olim Davidis),In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium, A. Busse (ed.), (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca) [CAG 18], Berlin, 1900. [on the authorship of this commentary, see Helmig 2018]
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich,Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie 1, Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel (eds.), Volume 18, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1986.
Philoponus,De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, Hugo Rabe (ed.), (Bibliotheca scriptorium Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Lipsiae: B.G. Teubner, 1899.
Plotinus,Opera, Paul Henry and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (eds.), editio minor, 3 Volumes, (Scriptorum classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964–1982.
Plutarch’sMoralia in Seventeen Volumes, XIII, Part II, 1033a–1086b [On the Generation of Soul in Plato’s Timaeus], with an English translation by Harold F. Cherniss (The Loeb classical library, 427), Cambridge (Mass.) – London: Harvard University Press – William Heinemann LTD, 1976.
Procli DiadochiIn Platonis Timaeum commentaria, Ernst Diehl (ed.), (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana), Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1906. [reprinted Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965]
Proclus,The Elements of Theology, a revised text with translation, introduction and commentary by Eric Robertson Dodds, second edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963. [first published 1933]
–––,Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. Volume 1, book I: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis, Harold Tarrant (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Scholarly works

Balansard, Anne and Annick Jaulin (eds.), 2017,Alexandred’Aphrodise et La MétaphysiqueAristotélicienne, (Aristote : Traductions etÉtudes), Leuven: Peeters.
Baltussen, Han, 2002, “Philology or Philosophy? Simpliciuson the Use of Quotations”, inEpea and Grammata. Oral andWritten Communication in Ancient Greece, Ian Worthington and JohnFoley (eds.), Leiden: Brill, 173–189.doi:10.1163/9789004350922_016
–––, 2015, “Simplicius on Elements andCauses in Greek Philosophy: Critical Appraisal or PhilosophicalSynthesis?”, in Causation and Creation in LateAntiquity, Anna Marmodoro and Brian D. Prince (eds.), Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 111–128.doi:10.1017/CBO9781107447974.008
–––, 2016,The Peripatetics:Aristotle’s Heirs 322 BCE - 200 CE, London: Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781315719092
–––, 2018, “Simplicius and theCommentator’s Task: Clarifying Exegeses and ExegeticalTechniques”, in Strobel 2018: 159–183.
Baltzly, Dirk, 2002, “What Goes Up: Proclus AgainstAristotle on the Fifth Element”,Australasian Journal ofPhilosophy, 80(3): 261–287. doi:10.1080/713659466
Barney, Rachel, 2009, “Simplicius: Commentary, Harmony, andAuthority”,Antiquorum Philosophia, 3: 101–120.doi:10.1400/127754
Blackwell, Constance, 2011, “Neo-Platonic Modes OfConcordism Versus Definitions Of Difference: Simplicius, AugustinusSteuco And Ralph Cudworth Versus Marco Antonio Zimara And BenedictusPererius”, inLaus Platonici Philosophi: Marsilio Ficino andhis Influence, Stephen Clucas, Peter J. Forshaw, and Valery Rees(eds.), Leiden: Brill, 317–342.doi:10.1163/ej.9789004188976.i-384.55
Blumenthal, H. J. and A. C. Lloyd, (eds.), 1982,Soul and theStructure of Being in Late Neoplatonism: Syrianus, Proclus, andSimplicius; Papers and Discussions of a Colloquium Held at Liverpool,15–16 April 1982, Liverpool: Liverpool UniversityPress.
Bole, Thomas James, 1993,Plato and Aristotle in Agreement:The Neoplatonist Commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Bormann, Karl, 1979, “The Interpretation of Parmenides bythe Neoplatonist Simplicius”:,The Monist, 62(1):30–42. doi:10.5840/monist19796215
Bossier, Fernand, 1975,Filologisch-Historische Navorsingenover de Middleeuwse En Humanistische Latijnse Vertalingen van DenCommentaren van Simplicius, Deel I: De Commentaren In Ench., In Phys.,In Cat., In De Anima; Deel II: De Commentaar In De Caelo; Deel III:Teksten En Documenten. Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofLeuven.
–––, 1987, “Traductions latines etinfluences du commentaire in De Caelo en occident (XIIIe–XIVes.)”, in I. Hadot 1987: 289–325.
Bossier, Fernand and Carlos Steel, 1972, “Priscianus Lydusen de ‘In de Anima’ van Pseudo(?)-Simplicius”,Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie, 34(4): 761–822.
Bowen, Alan C., 2013,Simplicius on the Planets and theirMotions: In Defense of a Heresy, (Philosophia Antiqua, 133),Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004241718
Brittain, Charles and Tad Brennan, 2002,Simplicius: OnEpictetus’ Handbook 1–26, Tad Brennan and CharlesBrittain (trans.), London: Duckworth.
Cameron, Averil, 1969/70, “Agathias on theSassanians”,Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 23/24:67–183. doi:10.2307/1291291
Cardullo, R. Loredana, 1997, “LaΝοϵρὰΘϵωρία di Giamblico, come Chiave diLettura delle Categorie Di Aristotele: alcuni esempi”,Syllecta Classica, 8: 79–94.doi:10.1353/syl.1997.0016
Champion, M., 2004,The Eternity of the World in the SixthCentury: Philoponus, Simplicius and Cosmas Indicopleustes,Honours thesis, University of Melbourne.
Chase, Michael, 2000,Études sur le commentaire dePorphyre sur les ‘Categories’ d’Aristoteadressé à Gédalios, Ph.D. Dissertation,thèse inédite de la V Section de l’Écolepratique des Hautes Études, Paris [with a Frenchtranslation].
–––, 2008, “The Medieval Posterity ofSimplicius’ Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas andAl-Fārābī”, inMedieval Commentaries onAristotle’s Categories, Lloyd A. Newton (ed.), Leiden:Brill, pp. 9–29. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004167520.I-441.6
Chiaradonna, Riccardo, 2017, “Catégories etmétaphysique chez Alexandre d’Aphrodise:l’exégèse deCatégories 5”,in Balansard and Jaulin 2017: 157–180.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo and Marwan Rashed, forthcoming,Boéthos de Sidon exégète d’Aristote etphilosophe, (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina),Berlin: de Gruyter.
Coope, Ursula, 2016, “Rational Assent andSelf–Reversion: A Neoplatonist Response to the Stoics”, inOxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume 50, VictorCaston (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 237–288.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198778226.003.0007
Cordero, Nestor-Luis, 1987, “Simplicius etl’«école» éléate”, in I.Hadot 1987: 166–182.
Croese, Irma Maria, 1998,Simplicius on Continuous andInstantaneous Change: Neoplatonic Elements in Simplicius’Interpretation of Aristotelian Physics, (Quaestiones Infinita,23), Utrecht: Zeno Institute of Philosophy.
D’Ancona, Cristina, 2002, “Commenting on Aristotle:From Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism”, inDerKommentar in Antike und Mittelalter, volume 1, Wilhelm Geerlingsand Christian Schulz (eds.), (Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis etMedii Aevi, 2), Leiden: Brill, pp. 201–251.
de Haas, F. A. J., 2000, “Mathematik und Phänomene:Eine Polemik über Naturwissenschaftliche Methode inSimplikios”,Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihreRezeption, 10: 107–129.
–––, 2002, “Modifications of the Method ofInquiry in Aristotle’s Physics I.1: An Essay on the Dynamics ofthe Ancient Commentary Tradition”, inThe Dynamics ofAristotelian Natural Philosophy from Antiquity to the SeventeenthCentury, Cees L. Leijenhorst, Christoph H. Lüthy, andJohannes M. M. H. Thijssen (eds.), (Medieval and Early Modern Science,5), Leiden: Brill, pp. 31–56.
–––, 2010, “Priscian of Lydia andPseudo-Simplicius on the Soul”, inThe Cambridge History ofPhilosophy in Late Antiquity, volume 2, Lloyd P. Gerson (ed.),Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 756–764 (bib.1147–1149). doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521194846.012
Diels, Hermann, 1879,Doxographi Graeci, Berlin:Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
–––, 1903,Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,Griechisch und Deutsch, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
Dillon, John M., 1997, “Iamblichus’ΝοϵρὰΘϵωρία of Aristotle’sCategories”,Syllecta Classica, 8: 65–77.doi:10.1353/syl.1997.0013
Falcon, Andrea (ed.), 2016,Brill’s Companion to theReception of Aristotle in Antiquity, (Brill’s Companions toClassical Reception 7), Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004315402
–––, 2017,Aristotelismo, Turin:Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi.
Festugière, A.-J., 1963 [1971], “Modes de CompositionDes Commentaires de Proclus”,Museum Helveticum, 20(2):77–100. Reprinted in hisÉtudes de philosophiegrecque, Paris: Vrin, 1971, pp. 551–574.
Finamore, John F. and John M. Dillon, 2002,Iamblichus“De Anima”: Text, Translation, and Commentary,(Philosophia Antiqua, 92), Leiden: Brill.doi:10.1163/9789047401421
Gabor, Gary, 2014, “The Justification and Derivation ofAristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius”,Quaestiones Disputatae, 4(2): 100–113.doi:10.5840/qd2014427
Gaskin, R., 1998, “Simplicius on the Meaning of Sentences: ACommentary onIn Cat. 396,30-397,28”,Phronesis, 43(1): 42–62.doi:10.1163/15685289860517793
Gätje, Helmut, 1982, “Simplikios in der arabischenÜberlieferung”,Der Islam, 59(1): 6–31.doi:10.1515/islm.1982.59.1.6
Gavray, Marc-Antoine, 2007,Simplicius lecteur du Sophiste.Contribution à l’étude del’exégèse néoplatonicienne, Paris:Klincksieck.
–––, 2011a, “Archytas lu par Simplicius.Un art de la conciliation”,The International Journal of thePlatonic Tradition, 5(1): 85–158.doi:10.1163/187254711X555540
–––, 2011b, “Confronter les idées.Un exemple de conciliation litigieuse chez Simplicius”,Études Platoniciennes, 8: 145–160.doi:10.4000/etudesplatoniciennes.466
–––, 2018, “Reconciling Plato’s andAristotle’s Cosmologies: Attempts at Harmonization inSimplicius”, in Strobel 2018: 101–125.
Gerson, Lloyd P., 2005,Aristotle and Other Platonists,Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Golitsis, Pantelis, 2007, “Nicéphore Blemmydelecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physiqued’Aristote”, inThe Libraries of theNeoplatonists, Cristina D’Ancona (ed.), (PhilosophiaAntiqua, 107), Leiden: Brill, pp. 243–259.doi:10.1163/ej.9789004156418.i-536.17
–––, 2008a,Les Commentaires de Simplicius etde Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition etInnovation, (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina, 3),Berlin: de Gruyter.
–––, 2008b, “Un commentaireperpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physiqued’Aristote, Faussement Attribué à MichelPsellos”,Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 100(2):637–676. doi:10.1515/BYZS.2008.637
–––, 2016, “Simplicius and Philoponus onthe Authority of Aristotle”, in Falcon 2016: 419–448.
–––, 2017a, “Alexandre d’Aphrodise,Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers”, inBalansard and Jaulin 2017: 217–236.
–––, 2017b, “On Simplicius’ Life andWorks: A Response to Hadot”,Aestimatio, 12:56–82.
–––, 2018, “Simplicius, Syrianus and theHarmony of Ancient Philosophers”, in Strobel 2018:69–100.
Gregoric, Pavel and Christoph Helmig, 2011,“ὁμόσεχωρεῖν: Simplicius,Corollarium deloco 601.26–8 (Diels)”,The ClassicalQuarterly, 61(2): 722–730.doi:10.1017/S0009838811000073
Griffin, Michael J., 2012, “What Has Aristotelian Dialecticto Offer a Neoplatonist? A Possible Sample of Iamblichus at Simpliciuson theCategories 12,10–13,12”,TheInternational Journal of the Platonic Tradition, 6(2):173–185. doi:10.1163/18725473-12341234
–––, 2015,Aristotle’s Categories inthe Early Roman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724735.001.0001
–––, 2018, “Language Converts Psyche:Reflections on Commentary in Late Ancient Philosophical Research andEducation”, in Strobel 2018: 127–157.
Groisard, Jocelyn, 2016,Mixis: Le problème dumélange dans la philosophie grecque d’Aristote àSimplicius, (Anagôgê, 9), Paris: Les BellesLettres.
Guldentops, Guy, 2005, “Plato’s Timaeus inSimplicius’ De Caelo: A Confrontation with Alexander”, inLeinkauf and Steel 2005: 195–212.
Hadot, Ilsetraut, 1969, “Die Widerlegung desManichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios”,Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 51(1):31–57. doi:10.1515/agph.1969.51.1.31
–––, 1978,Le Problème duNéoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hiéroclès etSimplicius. Paris: Études Augustiniennes.
––– (ed.), 1987,Simplicius, sa vie, sonœuvre, sa survie: actes du colloque international de Paris (28Sept. – 1er Oct. 1985), (Peripatoi.Philologisch-historische Studien zum Aristotelismus 15), Berlin: deGruyter.
––– (ed.), 1995,Simplicius: Commentaire surle Manuel d’Epictète, (Philosophia Antiqua, 66),Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004320888
–––, 2002, “Simplicius or Priscianus? Onthe Author of the Commentary on Aristotle’sDe Anima(CAG XI): A Methodological Study”,Mnemosyne, 55(2):159–199. doi:10.1163/15685250252989724
–––, 2007, “Dans quel lieu lenéoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son écolede mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretienavec un manichéen?”,The International Journal of thePlatonic Tradition, 1(1): 42–107.doi:10.1163/187254707X194654
––– (ed.), 2014,Le NéoplatonicienSimplicius à La Lumière de La RechercheContemporaine, Berlin: Akademia-Verlag.
–––, 2015,Athenian and AlexandrianNeoplatonism and the Harmonization of Aristotle and Plato,(Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition, 18),Michael Chase (trans.), Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004281592
Hadot, Ilsetraut and Philippe Hoffman, 1990,Simplicius,Commentaire sur les ‹Catégories›. Traductioncommentée sous la direction de I. Hadot. Fascicule I:Introduction, Première partie (p. 1–9,3 Kalbfleisch),traduction de Ph. Hoffmann, commentaire et notes à latraduction par I. Hadot, avec des appendices de P. Hadot et J.-P.Mahé, Leiden: Brill.
Hadot, Pierre, 1987, “La Survie du Commentaire de Simpliciussur la Manual d’Épictète du XVe au XVIISiècles: Perotti, Politien, Steuchus, John Smith,Cudworth”, in I. Hadot 1987: 326–367.
–––, 1995,Philosophy as a Way of Life. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, edited with an introduction by Arnold I. Davidson, translated by Michael Chase, Oxford/Cambridge (MA): Blackwell. [English translation of Pierre Hadot,Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique, (Collection des études augustiniennes. Série antiquité, 88), Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1981]
Hankey, Wayne J., 2002, “Thomas’ NeoplatonicHistories: His Following of Simplicius”,Dionysius, 20:153–178.
Harari, Oma, 2009, “Simplicius on the Reality of Relationsand Relational Change”,Oxford Studies in AncientPhilosophy, Volume 37, Oxford: Oxford University Press,245–274.
–––, 2012, “Simplicius on TekmeriodicProofs”,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science PartA, 43(2): 366–375. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.12.032
Harlfinger, Dieter, 1987, “Einige Aspekte derhandschriftlichen Überlieferung des Physikkommentars desSimplikios”, in I. Hadot 1987: 267–286.
Hauer, Mareike, 2015, “Simplicius on predication”,Revue de philosophie ancienne, 33(2): 173–199.doi:10.3917/rpha.332.0173
–––, 2016a, “The Notion ofἐπιτηδειότηςin Simplicius’ Discussion of Quality”,Documenti eStudi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, 27:65–83.
–––, 2016b, “Simplicius on the Relationbetween Quality and Qualified”,Méthexis, 28:111–140. doi:10.1163/24680974-02801008
–––, 2018,The Explanation of QualitativeProperties in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’sCategories, Ph.D. Dissertation, KU Leuven.
Helmig, Christoph, 2009, “‘The Truth Can Never BeRefuted’: Syrianus’ view(s) on AristotleReconsidered”, inSyrianus et la Métaphysique del’Antiquité tardive, A. Longo (ed.), (Elenchos, 51),Rome: Bibliopolis, pp. 347–380.
–––, 2012,Forms and Concepts: ConceptFormation in the Platonic Tradition, (Commentaria in AristotelemGraeca et Byzantina, 5), Berlin: de Gruyter.
–––, 2014, “Iamblichus, Proclus andPhiloponus on Parts, Capacities and ousiai of the Soul and the Notionof Life”, inPartitioning the Soul: Debates from Plato toLeibniz, Klaus Corcilius and Dominik Perler (eds.), Berlin: deGruyter, pp. 149–178.
–––, 2018, “Die Jeweiligen Eigenheiten derNeuplatoniker David und Elias und die umstrittene Autorschaft desKommentars zur Kategorienschrift”, in Strobel 2018:277–307.
Helmig, Christoph and Carlos Steel, 2018, “PriskianosLydos”, inPhilosophie der Kaiserzeit und derSpätantike, Christoph Riedweg, Christoph Horn, and DietmarWyrwa (eds.), (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: DiePhilosophie der Antike, Volume 5/3), Basel: Schwabe, pp.2112–2118, 2190–2192.
Hoffmann, Philippe, 1980, “Les CatégoriesΠΟΙ et ΠΟΤΕ chez Aristote etSimplicius”, inConcepts et Catégories dans laPensée Antique, Pierre Aubenque (eds.),(Bibliothèque d’histoire de La Philosophie), Paris: Vrin,pp. 217–245.
–––, 1987a, “Aspects de LaPolémique de Simplicius Contre Philopon”, in I. Hadot1987: 183–221.
–––, 1987b, “Catégories et langageselon Simplicius: La question du ‘skopos’ du traitéaristotélicien des ‘Catégories’”, inI. Hadot 1987: 61–90.
–––, 1987c, “Simplicius’Polemics”, inPhiloponus and the Rejection of AristotelianScience, (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical StudiesSupplements, 103), London: Institute of Classical Studies, pp.57–83.
–––, 1994, “Damascius”, inDictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Volume 2, Paris:Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, pp. 541–593.
–––, 1998, “La fonction des prologuesexégétiques dans la pensée pédagogiquenéoplatonicienne”, inEntrer en matière. Lesprologues, J.-D. Dubois et B. Roussel (eds.), Paris: Cerf, pp.209–245.
–––, 2000a, “Les catégoriesaristotéliciennes pote et pou d’après leCommentaire de Simplicius: Méthoded’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux”, inLecommentaire entre tradition et innovation: Actes du ColloqueInternational de l’Institut des traditions textuelles, Paris etVillejuif, 22–25 Septembre 1999, Marie-OdileGoulet-Cazé (ed.), (Bibliothèque d’histoire de LaPhilosophie), Paris: Vrin, pp. 355–376.
–––, 2000b, “La Triade ChaldaîqueἜρως,Ἀλήθεια,Πίστις de Proclus àSimplicius”, inProclus et La ThéologiePlatonicienne. Actes Du Colloque International de Louvain, AlainPhilippe Segonds and Carlos Steel (ed.), (Ancient and MedievalPhilosophy 1, 26), Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp.459–489.
–––, 2006, “What Was Commentary in LateAntiquity? The Example of the Neoplatonic Commentators”, inA Companion to Ancient Philosophy, Mary Louise Gill andPierre Pellegrin (eds.), (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy, 31),Malden: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 597–622.doi:10.1002/9781444305845.ch31
–––, 2014, “Science Théologique etFoi Selon le Commentaire de Simplicius au de Caelod’Aristote”, inDe l’Antiquité Tardive auMoyen Âge, Elisa Coda and Cecilia Martini Bonadeo (eds.),Paris: Vrin, pp. 277–363.
Karamanolis, George, 2006,Plato and Aristotle in Agreement?Platonists on Aristotle from Antiochus to Porphyry, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
–––, 2018, “Why Did Porphyry WriteAristotelian Commentaries?”, in Strobel 2018: 9–43.
Keßler, Eckhard, 2008,Die Philosophie derRenaissance: Das 15. Jahrhundert, München: C. H. Beck.
Kremer, Klaus, 1961,Der Metaphysikbegriff in denAristoteleskommentaren der Ammoniusschule, (Beiträge zurGeschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, 39.1),Münster: Aschendorff.
Kupreeva, Inna, 2018, “§39. Alexander von Aphrodisias”, in: Christoph Riedweg / Christoph Horn / Dietmar Wyrwa (eds.),Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, begründet von Friedrich Ueberweg), völlig neubearbeitete Ausgabe, Basel: Schwabe, 387–390 and 442–450.
Lawrence, Marilyn, 2014, “Akrasia and Enkrateia inSimplicius’s Commentary on Epictetus’sEncheiridion”, inThe Neoplatonic Socrates, HaroldTarrant and Danielle A. Layne (eds.), Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, pp. 127–142.
Leinkauf Thomas and Carlos Steel (eds.),Platons“Timaeus” als Grundtext der Kosmologie in Spätantike,Mittelalter und Renaissance: Plato’s Timaeus and the Foundationsof Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance,Leuven: Leuven University Press.
Licciardi, Ivan Adriano, 2016,Parmenide tràdito,Parmenide tradìto nel Commentario di Simplicio alla Fisica diAristotele. Saggio introduttivo, Raccolta dei testi in greco,Traduzione e Commentario, (Symbolon, 42), Sankt Augustin:Academia Verlag.
–––, 2017,Critica dell’apparente ecritica apparente.Simplicio interprete di Parmenide nel commentario alde caelo di Aristotele. Saggio introduttivo, Raccolta dei testi,Traduzione e Commentario, (Symbolon, 44), Sankt Augustin:Academia Verlag.
Luna, Concetta, 1987, “La Relation chez Simplicius”,in I. Hadot 1987: 113–147.
–––, 2001, “Review of Thiel 1999:Simplikios und das Ende der Neuplatonischen Schule inAthen”,Mnemosyne, 54(4): 482–504.
Luna, Concetta, Alain Philippe Segonds, and Gerhard Endress, 2012,“Proclus de Lycie”, inDictionnaire des PhilosophesAntiques (Volume Vb:De Plotina à RutiliusRufus), Richard Goulet (ed.), Paris: CNRS Éditions, pp.1564–1674.
Mansfeld, Jaap, 1994,Prolegomena: Questions to Be SettledBefore the Study of an Author, or a Text, (Philosophia Antiqua61), Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004320833
Mansion, Auguste, 1956, “Les progrès del’«Aristoteles Latinus»”,RevuePhilosophique de Louvain, 54(41): 90–111.doi:10.3406/phlou.1956.4862
Menn, Stephen, 2010, “Simplicius on theTheaetetus(In Physica 17,38–18,23 Diels)”,Phronesis, 55(3): 255–270.doi:10.1163/156852810X506012
–––, 2018, “Andronicus and Boethus:Reflections on Michael Griffin’s ‘Aristotle’sCategories in the Early Roman Empire”,Documenti e Studisulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale, 29: 13–43.
Meyer, Hubert, 1969,Das Corollarium de Tempore des Simplikiosund die Aporien des Aristoteles zur Zeit, (Monographien zurNaturphilosophie, 8), Meisenheim: Anton Hain.
Moraux, Paul, 1971–2001,Der Aristotelismus bei denGriechen, 3 volumes, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Morisson, Donald, 1997, “Philoponus and Simplicius onTekmeriodic Proof”, inMethod and Order in RenaissancePhilosophy of Nature: The Aristotle Commentary Tradition, DanielA. Di Liscia, Eckard Kessler, and Charlotte Methue (eds.), London:Ashgate, pp. 1–23.
Narbonne, Jean-Marc, 1987, “Définition etdescription: Le problème de la saisie des genres premiers etdes individus chez Aristote dans l’exégèse deSimplicius,”Archive de Philosophie, 50(4):529–554.
Nardi, Bruno, 1951, “Il commento di Simplicio al De Animanelle controversie della fine del secolo XV e del secolo XVI”,inTesti umanistici inediti sul De Anima, coll. Archivio difilosofia, 1951, fasc. 1, Padova, pp. 139–206 [reprinted in B.Nardi,Saggi sull’aristotelismo padovano dal secolo XIV alXVI, Firenze: G. C. Sansone, 1958, p. 365–442].
O’Meara, Dominic J., 1989,Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
–––, 2004, “Simplicius on the Place ofthe Philosopher in the City”, inThe Greek Strand in IslamicPolitical Thought: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the Instituteof Advanced Study, Princeton, 16–27 June 2003, EmmaGannagé (ed.), (Mélanges de l’UniversitéSaint-Joseph, 57), Beyrouth: Bibliothèque Orientale – DarEl-Machreq, pp. 89–98.
O’Meara, Dominic J. and John Dillon, 2008,Syrianus: OnAristotle Metaphysics 3–4, (Ancient commentators onAristotle), London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Opsomer, Jan, 2010, “Olympiodorus”, inTheCambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, volume 2,Lloyd P. Gerson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,696–710. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521194846.009
–––, 2016, “An Intellective Perspective onAristotle: Iamblichus the Divine”, in Falcon 2016:341–357.
Opsomer, Jan and Carlos Steel, 2003,Proclus: On the Existenceof Evils, (Ancient Commentators on Aristotle), London: BloomsburyAcademic.
Perkams, Matthias, 2005, “Priscian of Lydia, Commentator ontheDe anima in the Tradition of Iamblichus”,Mnemosyne, 58(4): 510–530.doi:10.1163/156852505774483280
–––, 2008,Selbstbewusstsein in derSpätantike: Die neuplatonischen Kommentare zu Aristoteles’“De anima”, Berlin: de Gruyter.
–––, 2012, “Priscien de Lydie”, inDictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques (Volume Vb:DePlotina à Rutilius Rufus), Richard Goulet (ed.), Paris:CNRS Éditions, pp. 1514–1521.
Perry, Bruce Millard, 1983,Simplicius as a Source for and anInterpreter of Parmenides, Ph.D. Dissertation, University ofWashington. [Perry 1983 available online]
Praechter, Karl, 1922, “Nikostratos Der Platoniker”,Hermes, 57(4): 481–517.
Rashed, Marwan, 2011,Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Commentaireperdu à la Physique d’Aristote (Livres IV–VIII):Les Scholies Byzantines, (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca etByzantina, 1), Berlin: de Gruyter.
Rashed, Roshdi, 2005, “Les premières classificationsdes courbes”,Physis, 42: 1–64.
Salatowsky, Sascha, 2006,De Anima: Die Rezeption deraristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, (BochumerStudien zur Philosophie, 4), Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner.
Schmitt, Charles B., 1976, “Priscianus Lydus”, inCatalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, Volume 3, F.Edward Cranz and Paul Oscar Kristeller (eds.), Washington, DC: TheCatholic University of America Press, pp. 75–82.
Sharples, Robert W., 2010, “Peripatetics”, inTheCambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, volume 1,Lloyd P. Gerson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,140–160. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521764407.011
Schwark, Marina, 2018, “Simplicius and Iamblichus on Shape(morphê)”,Documenti e Studi sulla TradizioneFilosofica Medievale, 29: 60–87.
Sorabji, Richard, 1987a,Philoponus and the Rejection ofAristotelian Science, London: Duckworth.
–––, 1987b, “Simplicius: Prime Matter asExtension”, in I. Hadot 1987: 148–165.
–––, 2005,The Philosophy of theCommentators 200–600 AD: A Sourcebook; I: Psychology (withEthics and Religion); II: Physics; III: Logic and Metaphysics,London: Duckworth.
Soulier, Philippe, 2014,Simplicius et l’Infini,(Anagôgê), Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Steel, Carlos G., 1978,The Changing Self: A Study on the Soulin Later Neoplatonism; Iamblichus, Damascius and Priscianus,Brüssel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren enSchone Kunsten.
–––, 1997, “Introduction: The author ofthe Commentary On the Soul”, inPriscian: On Theophrastus onSense-Perception, P. Huby (trans.), London: Duckworth, pp.105–140.
–––, 2005, “Proclus’ Defence of theTimaeus against Aristotle’s Objections”, in Leinkauf andSteel 2005: 163–193.
––– (trans./ed.), 2013,‘Simplicius’: On Aristotle On the Soul3.6–13, London: Bristol Classical Press.
–––, 2016, “Proclus’ Defence of theTimaeus against Aristotle: A Reconstruction of a Lost PolemicalTreatise”, inAristotle Re-Interpreted: New Findings onSeven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators, Richard Sorabji(ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 327–352.
–––, 2018, “‘The Soul Never Thinkswithout a Phantasm’: How Platonic Commentators Interpret aControversial Aristotelian Thesis”, in Strobel 2018:185–224.
Strange, Steven K., 1987, “Plotinus, Porphyry, and theNeoplatonic Interpretation of the ‘Categories,’” inAufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, WolfgangHaase (ed.), Berlin: de Gruyter, ANRW 36.2, pp. 955–974.
Strobel, Benedikt (ed.), 2018,Die Kunst Der PhilosophischenExegese Bei Den Spätantiken Platon- UndAristoteles-Kommentatoren: Akten Der 15. Tagung Der Karl Und GertrudAbel Stiftung Vom 4. Bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier, (PhilosophieDer Antike : Veröffentlichungen Der Karl Und GertrudAbel-Stiftung 36), Berlin: De Gruyter.
Szlezák, Thomas A., 1972,Pseudo-Archytas über dieKategorien, herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert vonThomas Alexander Szlezák, (Peripatoi, 4), Berlin: deGruyter.
Taormina, Daniela Patrizia, 1989,Plutarco di Atene:L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme; Saggio Introduttivo, Fonti,Traduzione e Commento, (Symbolon, 8), Catania: Universitàdi Catania.
Tarán, Leonardo, 1984, “Amicus Plato, sed magis amicaveritas: From Plato and Aristotle to Cervantes”,Antike undAbendland, 30: 93–124. doi:10.1515/9783110241426.93
–––, 1987a, “Syrianus andPseudo-Alexander’s Commentary on Metaph. E-N”, inAristoteles – Werk und Wirkung, Jürgen Wiesner(ed.), Paul Moraux gewidmet, zweiter Band, Kommentierung,Überlieferung, Nachleben, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp.215–232.
–––, 1987b, “The Text of Simplicius’Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics”, in I. Hadot 1987:246–266.
Tempelis, Elias, 1998,The School of Ammonius, Son of Hermias,on Knowledge of the Divine, Athens: Parnassos LiterarySociety.
Thiel, Rainier, 1999,Simplikios und das Ende derneuplatonischen Schule in Athen, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Tornau, Christain, 2000, “Die Prinzipienlehre des Moderatosvon Gades: Zu Simplikiosin Ph. 230,34–231,24Diels”,Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 143(2): 197–220.
Tuominen, Miira, 2009,The Ancient Commentators on Plato andAristotle, Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Vallat, Philippe, 2014a, “La Postérité Arabedu Commentaire de Simplicius sur les Catégoriesd’après le Fihrist d’Ibn Al-Nadīm”, inI. Hadot 2014: 240–264.
–––, 2014b, “Le Dédicataired’un Commentaire de Simplicius sur le De Animad’après Le Fihrist d’Ibn Al-Nadīm”, inI. Hadot 2014: 102–129.
Verbeke, Gerard, 1982, “Some Later Neoplatonic Views onDivine Creation and the Eternity of the World”,Neoplatonismand Christian Thought, in Dominic J. O’Meara (ed.),(Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern, 3), Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press, pp. 45–53.
Vogel, Christian, 2013,Stoische Ethik und platonischeBildung: Simplikios’ Kommentar zu Epiktets Handbüchlein derMora, (Studien zu Literatur und Erkenntnis, 5), Heidelberg:Universitätsverlag.
Watts, Edward J., 2005, “Where to Live the PhilosophicalLife in the Sixth Century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the Return fromPersia”,Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 45(3):285–315. [Watts 2005 available online]
–––, 2006,City and School in Late AntiqueAthens and Alexandria, Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress.
Wilberding, James, 2005, “Aristotle, Plotinus, and Simpliciuson the Relation of the Changer to the Changed”,TheClassical Quarterly, 55(2): 447–454.doi:10.1093/cq/bmi042
Wildberg, Christian, 1988,John Philoponus’ Criticism ofAristotle’s Theory of Aether, (Peripatoi, 16), Berlin: deGruyter.
–––, 1993, “Simplicius und das Zitat: ZurÜberlieferung des Anführungszeichens”, inSymbolaeBerolinenses: Für Dieter Harlfinger, Friederike Berger(ed.), Amsterdam: Hakkert, pp. 187–199.
–––, 1999, “Impetus Theory and theHermeneutics of Science in Simplicius and Philoponus”,Hyperboreus, 5(1): 107–124.
–––, 2013,Philoponus: Against Aristotle, Onthe Eternity of the World, Christian Wildberg (trans.), (AncientCommentators on Aristotle), London: Bloomsbury.
–––, 2014, “The Will and Its Freedom:Epictetus and Simplicius on What Is Up to Us”, inWhat Is Upto Us? Studies on Agency and Responsibility in AncientPhilosophy, Pierre Destrée, Ricardo Salles, MarcoAntônio Zingano (eds.), (Studies on Ancient Moral and PoliticalPhilosophy, 1), Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, pp.329–350.
Zahlfleisch, Johann, 2009, “Einige Corollarien desSimplicius in seinem Commentar zu Aristoteles’Physik(ed. Diels). I. p. 1129–1152 (contra Philoponum)”,Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 15(2):186–213. doi:10.1515/agph.1902.15.2.186

Academic Tools

How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Acknowledgments

I would very much like to thank my collaborators at the University of Cologne Anna Pavani, Manuel Lorenz, Ina Schall, Fedora Hartmann, Emil Gaub and especially Laura Marongiu. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for most useful remarks and corrections. Thanks are due to the fantastic team of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and its principal editor Edward N. Zalta for their patience and detailed observations. Last but not least let me thank Merrie Bergmann for correcting the English and many useful suggestions.

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free

Browse

About

Support SEP

Mirror Sites

View this site from another server:

USA (Main Site)Philosophy, Stanford University

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

	How to cite this entry.
	Preview the PDF version of this entry at theFriends of the SEP Society.
	Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).
	Enhanced bibliography for this entryatPhilPapers, with links to its database.

Movatterモバイル変換

Simplicius

1. Life and Works

2. Simplicius as a Commentator: General Remarks

3. The Decisive Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias

4. How to Comment on Aristotle as a Neoplatonist?

5. The Commentary as Spiritual Exercise

6. The Harmony of Plato and Aristotle and Christian Threads

7. Simplicius’ Legacy

Bibliography

List of abbreviations

Introductions, monographs, and collected volumes

Editions and Translations of His Commentaries

On Aristotle’sOn the Heavens

Standard edition of the Greek

English

On Aristotle’sCategories

Standard edition of the Greek

English

French

On Aristotle’sOn the Soul

Standard edition of the Greek

English

German

On Epictetus’Handbook

Standard edition of the Greek

English

German

On Aristotle’sPhysics

Standard edition of the Greek

English

French

German

Editions and Translations of other Ancient Authors

Scholarly works

Academic Tools

Other Internet Resources

Related Entries

Acknowledgments

Browse

About

Support SEP

Mirror Sites