Editing Simplicius of Cilicia (section)

==Legacy==
His commentaries can be regarded as the richest in their contents of any that have come down to us concerning Aristotle. But for them, we should be without the most important fragments of the writings of the [[Eleatics]], of [[Empedocles]], [[Anaxagoras]], [[Diogenes of Apollonia]], and others, which were at that time already very scarce,<ref>Simplicius, ''in Phys. Ausc.'' f. 31.</ref> as well as without many extracts from the lost books of Aristotle, Theophrastus and [[Eudemus of Rhodes|Eudemus]]: but for them we should hardly be able to unriddle the doctrine of the [[Category (philosophy)|Categories]], so important for the system of the [[Stoics]]. It is true he himself complains that in his time both the school and the writings of the followers of [[Zeno of Citium|Zeno]] had perished.<ref>Simplicius, ''in Arist. de Caelo'', 79, b.</ref> But where he cannot draw immediately from the original sources, he looks round for guides whom he can depend upon, who had made use of those sources. 

In addition, we have to thank him for such copious quotations from the Greek commentaries from the time of [[Andronicus of Rhodes]] down to Ammonius and Damascius, that, for the Categories and the Physics, the outlines of a history of the interpretation and criticism of those books may be composed. With a correct idea of their importance, Simplicius made the most diligent use of the commentaries of [[Alexander of Aphrodisias]] and [[Porphyry (philosopher)|Porphyry]]; and although he often enough combats the views of the former, he knew how to value, as it deserved, his (in the main) sound critical sense. He has also preserved for us intelligence of several more ancient readings, which now, in part, have vanished from the manuscripts without leaving any trace, and in the paraphrastic sections of his interpretations furnishes us with valuable contributions for correcting or settling the text of Aristotle. Not less valuable are the contributions towards a knowledge of the ancient astronomical systems for which we have to thank him in his commentary on the books ''De Caelo''. We even find in his writings some traces of a disposition for the observation of nature.<ref>Simplicius, ''Comm. in Phys. Ausc.'' 173, 176; ''de Anima'', 35, b. 36.</ref>

While some sources mistakenly attribute the coining of the phrase πάντα ῥεῖ (''[[Ta panta rhei|panta rhei]]''), meaning "everything flows/is in a state of flux", to Simplicius, the phrase is first found in this form in the philosophy of [[Heraclitus]]. Later on, it can be found in Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's ''Physica'' 1313.11. Variations of it, was current in both Plato and Aristotle's writings.

Simplicius was presented as an [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] named "Simplicio" by [[Galileo]] in his ''Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems''.{{sfn|Baltussen|2013|p=3}}

=== Middle Ages ===
==== Arabic speaking countries ====
In Arabic-speaking countries, Simplikios was known as ''Sinbilīqiyūs''. At least the commentaries on the ''Categories'' and on the first book of the ''Elements'' of Euclid have been translated into Arabic; in 987 the scholar [[Ibn an-Nadīm]] cited them in his ''Kitāb al-Fihrist''. He mentioned the name of Simplicius among mathematicians and astronomers, but also attributed to him a commentary on ''De Anima'', which had been translated into [[Classical Syriac]] and also existed in Arabic. The Persian mathematician [[al-Nayrizi]], active in Baghdad in the late 9th century, had extensively quoted the Euclid commentary in his own commentary on the ''Elements''. The writer [[Al-Qifti|Ibn al-Qiftī]] (1172–1248), who dealt with Simplicius in his manual on the history of science, relied on the statements made by Ibn an-Nadīm. He also described him as a mathematician and also claimed that he was respected and had successors who were named after him, so there was a school of Simplicius.<ref>[[Helmut Gätje]]: ''Simplikios in the Arabic tradition''. In: ''Islam. Journal of History and Culture of the Islamic Orient'' 59, 1982, pp. 6–31.</ref> The philosopher [[al-Fārābī]], who died in 950 and was a zealous user of ancient thought, apparently used the ''Categories'' commentary without ever naming the author. He shared the harmonizing view of Simplicius.<ref>Michael Chase: ''The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius' Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī''. In: Lloyd A. Newton: ''Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories.'' Leiden 2008, pp. 9–29, here: 11 f., 17–19.</ref> [[Averroes]], (1126–1198), in whose works numerous correspondences with texts by Simplicius can be found, never mentioned the Neoplatonist. He was so familiar with his argument against Philoponus that one researcher suggests that he had access to material from the ''Physics'' commentary.<ref>Michael Chase: ''Simplicius' response to Philoponus' attacks on Aristotle's Physics 8.1''. In: István Bodnár and others. (Translator): ''Simplicius: On Aristotle, Physics 8.1–5.'' London 2014, pp. 1–16, here: 10–12.</ref>

==== Western and Central Europe ====
In the 12th century [[Gerhard of Cremona]] translated the Euclid commentary of [[al-Nayrizi]] into Latin. As a result, the Simplicius quotations contained therein became known in the West. Gerhard rendered the philosopher's name as ''Sambelichius''.<ref>Critical edition of the Latin text of Gerhard's translation: Paul M.&nbsp;J.&nbsp;E. Tummers (ed.): ''The Latin translation of Anaritius' Commentary on Euclid's Elements of Geometry Books I-IV.'' Nijmegen 1994 (Book I: pp. 1–72).</ref> Around the middle 13th century, [[Albert Magnus]] used Gerhard's translation for his own Euclid Commentary, also adopting material from Simplicius.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lo Bello |first1=Anthony |title=The Commentary of Albertus Magnus on Book I of Euclid's Elements of Geometry |date=1 October 2021 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-45363-0 |pages=xiv-xxiii |url=https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/8327?language=en |access-date=4 May 2025 |language=en}}</ref>

The Latin-speaking [[Late Middle Ages|Late Medieval]] scholars of Western and Central Europe only had two writings by Simplicius: the commentaries on the ''Categories'' and on ''On the Heavens,'' which [[William of Moerbeke]] had translated into Latin. Moerbeke finished the translation of the ''Categories'' commentary in March 1266, that of the commentary on ''On the Heavens'' in June 1271. Earlier – in the period 1235–1253 – [[Robert Grosseteste]] had made a partial translation of the Commentary on ''On the Heavens''<ref>Fernand Bossier: ''Traductions latines et influences du commentaire In De caelo en Occident (XIIIe–XIVe s.)''. In: Ilsetraut Hadot (ed.): '' Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie.'' Berlin 1987, pp. 289–325, here: 289–293</ref> which had a strong influence on philosophers including [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Henry of Ghent]], [[Aegidius Romanus]] and [[Duns Scotus]]. Aquinas followed Simplicius' harmonizing interpretation of the relationship between Plato and Aristotle, and made extensive use of Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Categories.{{sfn|Baltussen|2013|p=3}}<ref>Michael Chase: ''The Medieval Posterity of Simplicius' Commentary on the Categories: Thomas Aquinas and al-Fārābī''. In: Lloyd A. Newton: ''Medieval Commentaries on Aristotle's Categories.'' Leiden 2008, pp. 9–29, here: 11, 13–17; Adriaan Pattin (ed.): '' Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote. Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke.'' Volume 1, Louvain 1971, pp. XVIII-XXIII.</ref> [[Petrus de Alvernia]] used in his commentary on ''Über den Himmel'' a wealth of material from the relevant work of his ancient predecessor, and [[Heinrich von Mechelen|Heinrich Bate]] in his great handbook ''Speculum Divinorum et Quorundam Naturalium'' partly agreeing, partly disagreeing with the theses put forward by Simplicius in his commentary on ''On the Heavens''<ref>Fernand Bossier: ''Traductions latines et influences du commentaire In De caelo en Occident (XIIIe –XIVe&nbsp;s.)''. In: Ilsetraut Hadot (ed.): '' Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie.'' Berlin 1987, pp. 289–325, here: 308–320</ref> rather than relying on the authority of Simplicius. From this it can be seen that Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle enjoyed an extraordinary reputation.<ref>Adriaan Pattin (ed.): '' Simplicius: Commentaire sur les Catégories d'Aristote. Traduction de Guillaume de Moerbeke.'' Volume 1, Louvain 1971, p. XXI.</ref>

==== Byzantine Empire ====
[[File:Simplicius of Cilicia, Commentary on Aristotle's Physics III 518,5–30.jpg|thumb|A page of the copy of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's ''Physics'' made by Theodora Rhaulaina between 1261 and 1282. Moscow, State Historical Museum, Codex 3649, fol. 221r.]]
The Byzantine princess Theodora Rhaulaina, a niece of Emperor [[Michael VIII Palaiologos|Michael VIII]], copied the ''Physics'' commentary of Simplicius in the period 1261–1282. This text-critical [[Codex]] has been preserved and is now in the [[State Historical Museum (Moscow)|Historical Museum]] in Moscow.<ref>[[Dieter Harlfinger]]: ''Some aspects of the handwritten tradition of the physics commentary of Simplicius''. In: Ilsetraut Hadot (ed.): '' Simplicius. Sa vie, son œuvre, sa survie.'' Berlin 1987, pp. 267–286, here: 267 f.</ref> The Byzantine philosopher [[Georgios Gemistos Plethon]] († 1452), a Platonist and opponent of Aristotelianism, disapproved of Simplicius' harmonization of Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy. He claimed that Simplicius only undertook this in order to favorably contrast an alleged unity among the pagan philosophers with the disputes among the Christians. However, he did not present anything convincing to support this claim.<ref>François Masai: ''Pléthon et le platonisme de Mistra.'' Paris 1956, p. 183 f.</ref>

===Modern===
For [[Hegel]], Simplicius was "the most learned and most astute of the Greek commentators on Aristotle".<ref>Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: ''Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie I'' (= ''Werke.'' Band 18). Frankfurt 1986, p 191.</ref>  In Hegel's time, however, several of the works of the Neoplatonist were still unprinted. The first modern critical edition of Simplicius' commentaries on Aristotle was only begun in 1882 by the [[Prussian Academy of Sciences|Berlin Academy of Sciences]]; The last volume appeared in 1907. The project was led by [[Hermann Diels]]. At that time, the commentaries were valued above all as sources for the history of philosophy of earlier epochs and for the ancient reception of Aristotle. From this point of view, [[Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff]] judged that the "excellent Simplicius" had been "a good man" and that the world could never thank him enough for the preservation of fragments from lost older works.<ref>Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff u.&nbsp;a.: ''Die griechische und lateinische Literatur und Sprache.'' 3., verbesserte Auflage, Leipzig/Berlin 1912,p 283.</ref> 

Simplicius' own philosophical achievement received less attention; the disdain that was widespread in the 19th and early 20th centuries for late antique Neoplatonism, which was then notorious for being too speculative, stood in the way of an unbiased assessment.<ref>Han Baltussen: ''Simplicius of Cilicia.'' In: Lloyd P. Gerson (Hrsg.): ''The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity.'' Band 2, Cambridge 2010, S.&nbsp;711–732, hier: 714, 731&nbsp;f.</ref> [[Eduard Zeller]]<ref>Eduard Zeller: ''Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung.'' p 910–914.</ref>  (1903) found the commentaries to be "the work of great diligence and comprehensive erudition" and offer a "careful and mostly reasonable explanation" of the texts interpreted. However, Zeller considered Simplicius' denial of considerable contradictions between Aristotle and Plato to be completely wrong, characterizing as someone a thinker who hardly made an original philosophical achievement, but was only "the thinking editor of a given teaching that has come to its conclusion in all essential respects". [[Karl Praechter]] (1927) judged that the commentary tradition exemplified by Simplicius was one of the most attractive phenomena of late antiquity due to its “mutual complementation and tempering of Platonic and Aristotelian ways of thinking”, stressing Simplicius' "love of solid scholarship both in the philosophical and philological-literary areas as well as in the exact sciences".<ref>Karl Praechter: ''Simplicius (10)''. In: ''[[Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft]].'' Band 3 A/1, Stuttgart 1927, Sp.&nbsp;204–213, hier: 205, 212.</ref>

In the second half of the 20th century, however, research into his teachings intensified. Since then, his comprehensive synthesis of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic ideas has been recognized as an important achievement.{{sfn|Sorabji|1987|pp=153-155}}<ref>Albrecht Dihle: ''Die griechische und lateinische Literatur der Kaiserzeit.'' München 1989, S.&nbsp;503.</ref><ref>[[Jens Halfwassen]]: ''Plotin und der Neuplatonismus.'' München 2004, S.&nbsp;163.</ref>