Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato's Last Interpreter

Home , Damascius, Simplicius of Cilicia, Syrianus

chapter 31 Simplicius of Cilicia: Plato’s Last Interpreter

Gary Gabor

I Introduction

Simplicius is well regarded today as an insightful, comprehensive, detailed, sometimes repetitive, but generally useful and reliable interpreter of Aristo tle.1 How he reads other authors though – with the possible exception of the Presocratics – is less well studied.2 In this chapter my aim is to examine Sim plicius’ interpretation of Plato. By this I mean not Simplicius’ views regarding Platonism (though these of course influenced his interpretation), but rather the ways in which Simplicius read the particular dialogues written by Plato, as well as the history that had accumulated by his time regarding Plato’s life and thought. While something of a picaresque task, given that Simplicius’ extant commentaries all center on texts of either Aristotle or the Stoic Epictetus – the

1 See for instance the favorable assessment of Simplicius by, eg., Baltussen (2010), 715, and McKirahan (2001), 1. There is some dissent, though, regarding the commentary on Aristo tle’s De Anima that comes down under Simplicius’ name – J.O. Urmson and Carlos Steel, for instance, both find it very untrustworthy as an interpretation of Aristotle’s intentions there. Its reliance upon and respect for the third century Pythagoranizing Platonist Iamblichus, they believe, along with its excessive “Platonizing” character in fact are reasons why they doubt the author of the commentary is actually Simplicius, a subject which has become one of the most contentious subjects of Simplicius scholarship. For their arguments against Sim plician authorship, cf. Urmson (1995), 2–4; Steel (1997b), 105–40 and 2012, vii–39. Against Urmson and Steel, it should be noted that Simplicius’ use and respect for Platonic authors, including Iamblichus but also Plotinus, Syrianus, Damascius, and other “orthodox” Platonists of late antiquity, remains constant throughout all his commentaries. In this then the De An- ima commentary is not unique, though the difference of degree with his other certain com mentaries remains unclear. For Ilsetraut Hadot’s recent forceful restatement of the argument for Simplicius’ authorship, see Hadot (2014). N.b., this essay is dedicated to Alice Behnegar, my first interpreter of Plato. 2 Assessments of the “faithfulness” of Simplicius’ reading of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, for instance in his commentary on the Enchiridion, vary. Some find him to be a reasonably in formed, although occasionally incorrect, interpreter of Epictetus’ Stoicism. For one generally positive assessment, see, e.g., Wildberg (2014). For some examples of “Platonist” misreading of Epictetus, see Brennan and Britain (2002), 4–10; Gabor (2014); Schils-Reydams (2007), 113; and Coughlin (2011), 39.

Physics, De Caelo, Categories, and, disputedly, the De Anima, as well as the En- chiridion – nevertheless, his frequent references, allusions, and discussions of Plato’s works in his writing provide ample evidence for gathering a good work ing picture of how Simplicius read him.

II Simplicius’ General Approach to Reading Plato

Despite the charge often leveled against the Neoplatonic commentators – that they generally approach Plato dogmatically, tone-deaf to the stylistic and dra matic aspects of Plato’s dialogues and lack of any sort of finesse or subtlety in distinguishing between Plato’s own views and those of the characters found in the dialogues – it is good to report that Simplicius makes no such basic mistakes. Indeed, one recent assessment, by Hans Baltussen, makes Simplicius out to be more pedestrian than anything else: “Simplicius was obviously familiar with Pla to’s works and expresses coherent views on them, albeit in passing.”3 And indeed, while there are many brief references and allusions to Plato’s work throughout Simplicius’ commentaries (indeed, it is striking how often a line or thought from Plato will both generate and end discussion for Simplicius), there are many ex tended passages where Simplicius embarks on a much more substantial engage ment with Plato. Simplicius separates the views of Plato from the Platonic Soc rates, as he does for instance at in Ench. 28.33–34, as well as between Plato and other characters such as Timaeus. He also holds the interesting theory that the Athenian Stranger of the Laws was none other than Plato himself, and that here Plato presents his own final views “in his own person” (αὐτοπροσώπως: in Ench. 28.41). Simplicius thus demonstrates an admirable sensitivity to characteriza tion, and suggests provocative and intriguing theories as to Plato’s intentions and use of characters in his dialogues. His is not a monolithic Plato. One next wonders how much of Plato’s writings Simplicius read. Based on his frequent allusions to and explicit discussions of Platonic texts, it is safe to say that Simplicius could at least discuss the Apology, Crito, Euthydemus, Alicibiades I, Protagoras, Gorgias, Phaedo, Symposium, Phaedrus, Theaetetus, Republic, Timaeus, Statesman, Sophist, Philebus, and Laws with intelligence. He refers to the Socratic literature of some other authors, such as Xenophon,4

3 Baltussen (2010), 713. 4 Simplicius was familiar enough with Xenophon to even comment on his simpler style com pared to Plato, a feature still familiar to students of Greek today; cf. in Cat. 25.16–18. In addi tion, significant references and allusions to Xenophon’s writings, especially the Memorabilia and Anabasis, can be found in the Enchiridion commentary.