Simplicius: On Aristotle's Categories 1-4

Introduction

The Neoplatonic philosopher Simplicius (flourished sixth century AD) was long considered important primarily as a source of fragments of other philosophers. In his immense body of work, consisting entirely of commentaries, Simplicius quotes the views of dozens of his predecessors, often providing us with the only surviving text of many ancient philosophers. His role as a preserver of the fragments of the Presocratic philosophers has caused modern scholars in the field to describe Simplicius as "invaluable," and to praise him for his preservation of fragments of Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Diogenes of Apollonia. A glance at the index of sources to Von Arnim's Fragments of the Old Stoics is enough to convince us of his importance as a transmitter of Stoic doctrine. His importance as a source for such Peripatetic Peripatetic: relating to Aristotle and his followers philosophers as Eudemus of Rhodes, Andronicus, and Boethus is second to none, and he is the source for much of our knowledge of such Pythagorean and Pseudo-Pythagorean authors as Moderatus of Gades and Archytas, as well as philosophers of the Later Academy and the so-called Middle Platonists. Much of the lost commentaries on the Categories by his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry and Iamblichus can only be reconstructed through Simplicius as an intermediary, while, as we shall see below, his importance for reconstructing the thought of his master Damascius has only recently begun to be appreciated.

It is only recently, however, that Simplicius' works have begun to be carefully studied for their own value. The first international Colloquium on Simplicius' life and work was held in Paris in 1985, and new critical editions of most of Simplicius' works are currently in preparation. In Paris, a team led by Mme I. Hadot has begun a French translation, with abundant commentary, of his Commentary on the Categories. The more carefully and thoroughly contemporary scholars direct their attention to Simplicius' works, the more they arrive at the conclusion that Simplicius deserves study not only as a source for ancient philosophers, or as an often-helpful guide to the study of Aristotle—the two reasons for which he has hitherto been consulted. These reasons remain as valid as ever, but in addition, it has come to be seen that Simplicius also deserves study for his own sake: as a witness of the Late Antique conflict between Paganism and Christi-