Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

SIMPLICIUS OR PRISCIANUS? ON THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE'S DE ANIMA (CAG XI): A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

SIMPLICIUS OR PRISCIANUS? ON THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE'S DE ANIMA (CAG XI): A... <jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Mnemosyne Brill

SIMPLICIUS OR PRISCIANUS? ON THE AUTHOR OF THE COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE'S DE ANIMA (CAG XI): A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

Mnemosyne , Volume 55 (2): 159 – Jan 1, 2002

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/simplicius-or-priscianus-on-the-author-of-the-commentary-on-aristotle-tsg5KdlKcS

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 2002 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0026-7074
eISSN
1568-525X
DOI
10.1163/15685250252989724
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

MnemosyneBrill

Published: Jan 1, 2002

There are no references for this article.