Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20
https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2024-10-2-183-196
Abstract
The present study attempts to show what influence a commentary can have on the formation of ideas about a preceding philosophical tradition. A case in point is Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s “Physics” and on fragments of Empedocles’ poem. The selected passage, though small in size, is quite remarkable in terms of content and the way Simplicius deals with it. With regard to content, we are dealing here with one of the fundamental problematic plots of Empedocles’ philosophy about the alternate rule of Love and Strife. But Simplicius adds to this his own view of Empedocles’ philosophy, dictated by his desire to harmonize the views of all the pagan philosophers and place them within a single consistent scheme. Simplicius wanted to counterpose something to Christianity, which was gaining in strength, and to show that all Greek philosophy developed along a certain path and contains no internal disagreements. On the one hand, Simplicius has preserved for us very valuable material — fairly lengthy sections of the text of Empedocles’ poem. On the other hand, wishing to implement his program, Simplicius chose those fragments of the poem that fit well into it. Therefore, the question arises whether we should take into account the context in which the fragments are quoted, or simply extract from the general body of the commentary those fragments of Empedocles’ poem that we need and consider them independently?
About the Author
A. S. Afonasina
I. Kant Baltic Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anna S. Afonasina, Cand. Sci. (Philosophy), Assistant Professor
Higher School of Philosophy, History and Social Sciences
236041; Alexander Nevsky Str., 14; Kaliningrad
References
1. Afonasina, A. S., & Kovalchuk, Χ. S. (2022). Rizōmata — chetyre osnovaniia vselennoi [Rizōmata — the four roots of the universe]. Respublica Literaria, 3(3), 5–18. doi: 10.47850/RL.2022.3.3.5-18. (In Russian).
2. Afonasin, E. V. (2022). Damaskii v Aleksandrii (2). Izbrannye fragmenty ego filosofskoi istorii [Damascius in Alexandria (2). Selected fragments of his “Philosophical History”]. ΣΧΟΛΗ (Schole), 16(1), 295–316. doi: 10.25205/1995-4328-2022-16-1-295-316. (In Russian).
3. Baltussen, H. (2008). Philosophy and exegesis in Simplicius. The methodology of a commentator. Bloomsbury Academic.
4. Barnes, J. (1984). Complete works of Aristotle (Vol. 1) (The Rev. Oxford Trans.). Princeton Univ. Press.
5. Bollack, J. (1969). Empédocle, Vol. 2: Les origines, édition et traduction des fragments et des témoignages. Gallimard.
6. Cameron, A. (1969). The last days of the Academy in Athens. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, New Series, 15(195), 7–29.
7. Diels, H,. & Kranz, W. (Eds.) (1960). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Vol. 1 (6<sup>th</sup> ed.) Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. August Raabe, Berlin-Neukölln.
8. Fedorova, O. B. (2005). Chetyre elementa Empedokla: tekstologicheskii analiz fragmentov [The four elements of Empedocles: The textual analysis of the fragments]. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniia i tekhniki, 26(2), 18–65. (In Russian).
9. Fowler, H. N. (Trans.) (1921). Plato (12 Vols., Vol. 12). Harvard Univ. Press.
10. Griffin, M., & Sorabji, R. (Eds.) (2022). Simplicius. On Aristotle Physics 1.1–2. (S. Menn, Trans.). Bloomsbury Academic.
11. Guthrie, W. K. C. (2017). A history of Greek philosophy, Vol. 2: The Presocratic tradition from Parmenides to Democritus. Cambridge Univ. Press.
12. Hladký, V. (2014). Empedocles’ Sphairos and its interpretations in Antiquity, I: Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. Eirene, 50, 149–164.
13. Huby, P., & Taylor, C. C. W. (Trans.) (2011). Simplicius On Aristotle Physics 1. 3–4. Bristol Classical Texts.
14. Laks, A., & Most, G. (Eds.) (2016). Early Greek philosophy, Vol. 5: Western Greek thinkers (Pt. 2). Harvard Univ. Press.
15. Lebedev, A. V. (1989). Fragmenty rannikh grecheskikh filosofov [The fragments of early Greek philosophers]. Nauka. (In Russian)
16. O’Brien, D. (1969). Empedocles’ cosmic cycle: A reconstruction from the fragments and secondary sources. Cambridge Univ. Press.
17. Picot, J.-C. (2014). Un nom énigmatique de l’air chez Empédocle (fr. 21.4 DK). Les Études philosophiques, 110(3), 343–373.
18. Primavesi, O. (2008). Empedocles Physica I. Eine Rekonstruktion des zentralen Gedankengangs. Walter de Gruyter.
19. Vedeshkin, M. A. (2018). Iazycheskaia oppozitsiia khristianizatsii Rimskoi imperii (IV–VI vv.) [The pagan opposition to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire (4<sup>th</sup>–5<sup>th</sup> centuries)]. Aleteiia. (In Russian).
20. Watts, E. (2005). Where to live the philosophical life in the sixth century? Damascius, Simplicius, and the return from Persia. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 45(3), 285–315.
21. Wright, R. (Ed.) (1981). Empedocles: The extant fragments. Yale Univ. Press.
Review
For citations:
Afonasina A.S. Simplicius on Empedocles: A note on his commentary in Phys. 157.25–161.20. Shagi / Steps. 2024;10(2):183-196. https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2024-10-2-183-196
Views:
67
Email this article 