This article presents, as a case study, the various inconsistencies which occur in the prosopographical entries concerning Simplicius, one of Sidonius’ most frequent addressees. Through the exegesis of passages of letters addressed to him (Epist. 3.11, 4.4, 4.7, 4.12, 5.4) and of passages believed to concern him (Carm. 24.89; Epist. 2.9 and 5.7), it argues for a revision of the common identification of Simplicius as brother of Apollinaris and Thaumastus, and for a re-evaluation of the sources which supposedly lead to this conclusion. Some cautionary remarks on the unchecked use of prosopography as a tool are followed by a hypothesis concerning the identity of this addressee of Sidonius.

In this paper, I examine the various interpretations of Xenophanes’ theology in antiquity. After distinguishing between the traditions of commentaries and of doxographies, I focus on two unexpected testimonies: Pseudo-Aristotle in On Melissus, Xenophanes and Gorgias and Simplicius. Both attribute to Xenophanes, unlike other authors, the thesis that the god is neither limited nor unlimited and neither moved nor unmoved. I argue that this reading originates from Theophrastus, more specifically from a commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, but that Pseudo-Aristotle is responsible for misinterpreting this claim and adding arguments to justify it. I finally highlight the many sources of Simplicius, who uses not only Theophrastus’ commentary on the Physics and Pseudo-Aristotle, but also another doxographical work, possibly the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.