This volume brings to an end the translation of Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's On the Heavens. However, as M. unfortunately died in August 2010, its translator was not given the opportunity of seeing this achievement – what we should now call an opus posthumum. Among other things, English readers owe him a debt of gratitude for most of Simplicius' Commentary, since he had already translated On the Heavens 1.2–3 (2010), 2.1–9 (2004), 2.10–14 (2005), 3.1–7 (2009) and 3.7–4.6 (2009). And he has left us with a piece of work as valuable as his previous translations.
The volume covers pp. 91.21–201.10 of Simplicius' Commentary, beginning with the second half of Chapter 1.3. However, as M. aptly points out, the commentary proper, that is, the explanation of Aristotle's text, occupies less than 30% of the whole text. Another small part is devoted to the discussion of general philosophical accounts, but the remainder, more than half of these chapters, deals with Simplicius' treatment of the objections raised by Philoponus in his (lost) Against Aristotle. These last issues were clearly his main concern.
It is not inappropriate to note here that this series has already offered a translation of these chapters, at least partially: the commentary part was translated by R.J. Hankinson (Simplicius, On Aristotle's On the Heavens 1.1–4 [2002]) and Philoponus' objections by C. Wildberg (Philoponus, Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World [1987]). So, one may wonder, is there a need for this new translation? First, it provides the first complete English translation of Simplicius' answers to Philoponus' objections. Second, it brings these chapters together and gives a harmonised translation of the whole. Therefore, for those interested in Simplicius, this is a precious work, undoubtedly easier to use.
In these two chapters, Aristotle deals with the impossibility for heaven to come to be, alter or perish. In other words, against Plato who, in the Timaeus, attributes coming to be to the kosmos, he explores the properties of its eternal being. One of his central arguments concerns the absence of opposites, which characterises circular movement (unlike movement up and down, or back and forth): as the movement of heaven is circular, it cannot have any opposite and, therefore, heaven cannot come to be or perish. This is the argument that Philoponus criticises, in accordance with his creationist background and his Christian reading of Plato. In the opposite corner, Simplicius attempts to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, despite their obvious disagreement, because of his harmonising of the Greek pagan tradition. His endeavour results in a brilliant synthesis of late Platonic cosmology, first exposed in its own principles, i.e. according to the procession from the One (91.21–109.15), and then in a polemical fashion, where Simplicius is often very harsh on this opponent, whom he calls a ‘late-comer in philosophy’. And M. perfectly succeeds in rendering both styles of Simplicius in these passages, alternately solemn or more vivid.
It is not necessary to enter into the details of the dispute here, as P. Hoffmann gave a precise analysis of both its content and aggressive tone some years ago (I quote the full reference, as M. missed it here, even if he gave it formerly, when publishing 3.7–4.6: ‘Simplicius’ Polemics. Some aspects of Simplicius' polemical writings against John Philoponus: from invective to a reaffirmation of the transcendency of the heavens', in R. Sorabji, Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science [1987], pp. 57–83). Let me merely note that Simplicius never addresses Philoponus by name, but calls him ‘the grammarian’, denying him the status of philosopher. Of course, this is a part of his argumentation, as M. reminds us. The disagreement between Aristotle and Plato can only be superficial, because Aristotle taught on the level of ordinary meaning and current opinions, whereas Plato wrote for more accomplished philosophers. Actually, one must know that Plato attributes coming to be to the kosmos, because it is a sensible and corporeal being. None the less, this statement does not imply that heaven really has a temporal coming into being.
The text contains few typos. I noted only two: the margins on p. 34 and p. 46 give wrong page numbers for the original text of Simplicius. M. provides, alongside the usual indexes and glossaries, four appendices. Two are lists of fragments: one of Philoponus' Against Aristotle, another of Alexander of Aphrodisias' lost Commentary On the Heavens. The third is a short note on the purity of the elements, and the last a figure of the zodiac system. Combined with a clever introduction, some helpful figures, the attention M. pays to Simplicius' variants regarding Aristotle's text, and his short, but numerous and instructive notes, they contribute to making this book a very good tool for understanding ancient cosmologies.
