Simplicius: On Aristotle's Categories 1-4

30. For accounts of the philosophy of Damascius, cf., besides the works cited in the previous note, J. Combès, ‘Introduction’ to Damascius, Treatise of the First Principles, vol. 1: On the Ineffable and the One, text established by L.G. Westerink and translated by J. Combès, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1986, ix-lxxii.

31. Simplicius, like Dexippus, reproduces many of the views expounded by Plotinus in his treatises On the Genera of Being (= Ennead VI,1-3), but in such a distorted form that Paul Henry was led to believe Simplicius was drawing on Plotinus’ unwritten doctrine. It seems more likely that Simplicius is quoting Plotinus at second- or third-hand, via the lost commentary Ad Gedalium of Porphyry; cf. P. Hadot 1974.

32. Simplicius appears to have inherited his fondness for Iamblichus from Damascius; see Simplicius In Physics vol. 1, 795,11-17 Diels:

‘All the philosophers from Proclus down to about my time followed Proclus ... except ... our Damascius ... Damascius, because of his love of hard work and his sympathy for Iamblichus, did not hesitate to reconsider many of Proclus’ dogmas’.

33. See n. 4 above. Like Iamblichus, Simplicius was convinced that Aristotle had plagiarized the Categories from a work by Plato’s Pythagorean acquaintance Archytas of Tarentum. Modern research has shown this work to be a Hellenistic forgery.

34. Simpl. In Cat., 3,2-4 Kalbfleisch.
35. ibid. 2,10-15.
36. ibid. 1,3-3,7.
37. ibid. 3,18-9,3.
38. ibid. 9,4-20,12.

39. On this section of Simplicius’ commentary, and the question of whether logic was a part or merely an instrument (organon: tool or instrument) of philosophy, see P. Hadot, Appendix I, in I. Hadot, 1990, 185-8.

40. It would be anachronistic to speak of ‘plagiarism’ here: in late Antiquity, it was customary to cite one’s main source only where one disagreed with it.

41. On the different methodological approaches of Porphyry and Iamblichus, see J. Pépin 1974; J. Dillon 1997.

42. I omit from this list Porphyry’s minor Commentary by Questions and Responses (ed. A. Busse, CAG 4.1 [1887]; English translation in this series by S. Strange, London & Ithaca NY, 1992), as well as the commentary by Dexippus (ed. A. Busse, CAG 4.2 [1888]; English translation in this series by J. Dillon, London & Ithaca NY, 1990). Both of these works, written in dialogue form, contain peculiarities of form and content largely attributable to their role as elementary introductions.

43. Simpl. In Cat. 83,1ff. Kalbfleisch.
44. Simpl. In Cat. 254,3ff.; 288,34ff. Kalbfleisch. On these passages and their Damascian origin, see I. Hadot 1996, 77ff.

45. The only other commentary which was not ‘taken down by dictation’ (apo phōnēs: orally delivered/transcribed) would seem to be Ammonius In De Interpretatione, ed. A. Busse (= CAG 4.5), Berlin, 1897. This commentary, similar in density and difficulty to Simplicius’ In Cat., has recently been translated in this series by David Blank (London & Ithaca NY, 1996).

46. e.g. 34,29ff. Kalbfleisch.

47. Simplicius’ proposed emendation (88,24ff. Kalbfleisch) of Aristotle Categories 5, 2b6f., was accepted by all modern editors except Minio-Paluello;