« Le mouvement semble faire partie des continus » : les Commentateurs anciens sur Aristote, Phys. III 1, 200b16-17

In this article I analyze some passages of Simplicius’, Philoponus’ and Themistius’ commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics in order: 1) to prove that these commentators interpret Aristotle’s Phys. III 1, 200b16–17 such that ‹continuum› is a defining term of motion; 2) to explain why talking about natural motion is for them the same as talking about motion that is continuous, and why they consequently would find it natural for Aristotle to include the continuum in the beginning of his theory of motion; and 3) to show that, if there is an imperfect analogy according to which ‹continuum› is a defining term of motion just like ‹motion› is a defining term of nature and ‹infinite› a defining term of the continuum (imperfect since ‹continuum› is not explicitly present in the definition of motion), this is because of the impossibility of subsuming motion under one of the categories of being. For this last point I have recourse to a quotation of Alexander by Simplicius and to a passage of Philoponus