Download - Teofrasto Primeros Principios
-
Theoph
rastus
OnFirstP
rinciples
(kno
wnas
hisM
etaphysics)
-
Philo
soph
iaAntiqua
ASeries
ofStud
ieso
nAncient
Philo
soph
y
Previous
Edito
rs
J.H.W
aszink
W.J.Ve
rdenius
J.C.M
.Van
Winden
Editedby
K.A.A
lgra
F.A.J.DeHaas
J.Mansfeld
C.J.Ro
we
D.T.R
unia
Ch.Wild
berg
VOLU
ME119
Theoph
rastus
ofEresus
Sourcesfor
HisLife,W
ritings,Th
oughtand
Influ
ence
Theoph
rastus
OnFirstP
rinciples
(kno
wnas
hisM
etaphysics)
Greek
TextandMedievalA
rabicTransla
tion,
EditedandTransla
tedwith
Introd
uctio
n,Com
mentaries
and
Glossaries,as
Wellasthe
MedievalL
atin
Transla
tion,andwith
anEx
cursus
onGraeco-ArabicEd
itorialTechniqu
e
By
Dim
itriG
utas
LEID
ENB
OST
ON
2010
-
Thisbo
okisprintedon
acid-freepaper.
Libraryof
Con
gressC
ataloging-in-Pub
licationData
Theoph
rastus.
[Metaphysic
a.Po
lyglot]
Theoph
rastus
onfirstprinciples
:(kn
ownas
hisM
etaphysic
s):G
reek
textandmedieval
Arabictransla
tion,
editedandtransla
tedwith
introd
uctio
n,commentaries
andglossaries,as
wellasthe
medievalL
atin
transla
tion,
andwith
anexcursus
onGraeco-Arabicedito
rial
techniqu
e/b
yDim
itriG
utas.
p.cm
.(Philosoph
iaantiq
ua,ISSN0079-1687;v.119.Th
eoph
rastus
ofEresus)
English
,Arabic,Greek,and
Latin
.Includ
esbibliographicalreferences(p.
)and
indexes.
ISBN
978-90-04-17903-5(hardb
ack:alk.paper)
1.Metaphysic
sEa
rlyworks
to1800.I.G
utas,D
imitri.II.T
itle.III.Series.
B626.T33M4172010
110dc22
2009038896
ISSN
:0079-1687
ISBN
:97890
04179035
Copyright
2010
byKon
inklijkeBrillNV,
Leiden,Th
eNetherla
nds.
Kon
inklijkeBrill
NVincorporates
theim
printsBrill,H
oteiPu
blish
ing,
IDCPu
blish
ers,Martin
usNijh
offPu
blish
ersa
ndVSP.
Allrightsreserved.N
opartof
thispu
blicationmay
bereprod
uced,translated,stored
inaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted
inanyform
orby
anymeans,electronic,mechanical,
photocopying
,recording
orotherw
ise,with
outp
rior
writtenperm
issionfrom
thepu
blish
er.
Autho
rizatio
nto
photocopyitemsfor
internalor
person
aluseisgrantedby
Kon
inklijkeBrillNV
provided
thattheapprop
riatefees
arepaid
directlyto
TheCopyright
Clearance
Center,
222Ro
sewoo
dDrive,Suite910,Danvers,M
A01923,USA
.Fees
aresubjecttochange.
printedin
thene
therla
nds
upsilonacute
-
upsilonacute
upsilonacute
upsilonlenis
"
$
%
&'
)
*)
,$
-(D
iog.Laert.V,)
quid?Th
eoph
rastus
mediocriternedelectat,
cum
tractatlocos
abAristoteleantetractatos?
Cicero,Defi
nibu
s.
-
CONTE
NTS
Preface................................................................
xiii
Ackno
wledgments.................................................x
vii
Abbreviations
andRe
ferenceWorks
.................................xx
iAbbreviations
ofWorks
byAristotleandTh
eoph
rastus
..........xx
iii
part
i
intr
oduc
tion
toth
etext
s
Chapter
One.Introdu
ctionto
theEssay.............................
3.
Dateof
Com
position............................................
3.
Title
andTransm
ission..........................................
9.
NatureandSign
ificanceof
theWork...........................
32.
Style,Structure,andCon
tentso
fthe
Text......................
38
Chapter
Two.Th
eGreek
Text:M
anuscripts,Translatio
ns,Stemma
Cod
icum
...........................................................
45.
TheGreek
Manuscripts.........................................
45Sub-family
JCL..................................................
47Sub-family
.....................................................
48.
Manuscript
,Exemplar
oftheArabicTransla
tionby
Is.haq
Ibn-
.Hun
ayn.....................................................
51.
Relatio
nof
to
Jand
P.........................................
54.
Manuscript
,Exemplar
oftheLatin
Transla
tionby
Bartho
lomew
ofMessin
a.......................................
57.
TheNeoplaton
icArchetype
oftheEx
tant
Manuscript
Tradition
........................................................
63.
Stem
maCod
icum
...............................................
65.
Sourcesa
ndPrinciples
oftheGreek
Edition
...................
66a.
Sourceso
fthe
text............................................
66b.
Theapparatusc
riticus:m
ainandsupp
lementary
...........
66c.
Theapparatuso
fparallelp
assages(Lo
ciParalleli)
..........
70d.
Punctuation..................................................
70
-
xco
nten
ts
e.Layout
oftheedition
s........................................
71f.
Thetransla
tionandanno
tatio
nof
theGreek
text
...........
72g.
Thecommentary
.............................................
73
Chapter
Three.Th
eArabicText:M
anuscripts,Transmission,
Edition
s............................................................
75.
TheArabicManuscripts
........................................
75.
TheArabicTransla
tion..........................................
80.
TheTransla
tor,Is.haqIbn-
.Hun
ayn.............................
84.
Edition
softhe
ArabicText
.....................................
89.
ThePresentE
ditio
nandTransla
tionof
theArabicText
.......
91
Excursus.P
rincipleso
fGraeco-ArabicTextualC
riticism
and
Edito
rialTechniqu
e................................................
93.
Stages
intheTransm
issionof
Texts.............................
93.
Relatio
nbetweenStages
and................................
94.
Relatio
nbetweenStages
and................................
95.
Accessories
......................................................
100
part
ii
thetext
sand
tran
slat
ions
.Th
eGreek
Textwith
English
Transla
tion........................
105
a.S
upplem
entary
CriticalApp
aratus
totheGreek
Text
...........161
.Th
eArabictextwith
English
Transla
tion........................
165
a.S
upplem
entary
CriticalApp
aratus
totheArabicText...........227
.Th
eLatin
Transla
tionby
Bartho
lomew
ofMessin
a.............229
part
iii
commen
tary
Introd
uctio
n..........................................................
247
Apo
ria...............................................................248
Apo
ria...............................................................255
Apo
ria...............................................................258
Apo
ria...............................................................263
Apo
ria...............................................................265
Apo
ria...............................................................270
cont
ents
xi
Apo
ria...............................................................278
Apo
ria...............................................................281
Apo
ria...............................................................290
Apo
ria
..............................................................
293
Apo
ria
..............................................................
299
Apo
ria
..............................................................
300
Apo
ria
..............................................................
300
Apo
ria
..............................................................
318
Apo
ria
..............................................................
336
Apo
ria
..............................................................
338
Apo
ria
..............................................................
342
Apo
ria
..............................................................
344
Apo
ria
..............................................................
356
Apo
ria
..............................................................
359
Apo
ria
..............................................................
368
Apo
ria
..............................................................
371
Apo
ria
..............................................................
379
Apo
ria
..............................................................
380
Apo
ria
..............................................................
395
Scho
lium
..............................................................
395
App
endix.K
nownby
BeingUnk
nown
(a).................
401
WordIndicesa
ndGlossaries.........................................409
.Greek
WordIndexandGreek-A
rabicGlossary................
409
Abbreviations.................................................410
Sign
s..........................................................
412
Transla
tionof
Greek
Morph
ology,Syntax,and
Semantics
434
Indexof
Words
intheScho
lium
.............................436
.ArabicWordIndexandArabic-Greek
Glossary...............437
Bibliography
..........................................................
481
IndexNom
inum
......................................................
491
IndexLo
corum
.......................................................499
-
PREF
ACE
Thesho
rtessayO
nFirstP
rinciplesby
Theoph
rastus,tho
ughttohave
been
know
nin
themanuscripttradition
ashisMetaphysicsbecauseitwas
transm
itted
together
with
thebo
oksthat
cameafter
AristotlesPh
ysics
(
$),occupies
adistinctivepo
sitionam
ongancient
Greek
philo
soph
icalwritings
intwoways.Itsurvivesinar
ichandvaried
manuscripttradition
that
includ
estwoearly
Greek
manuscripts
from
theninthandtenthcenturies,amedievalA
rabictransla
tionfrom
the
ninth,
amedievalL
atin
transla
tionfrom
thethirteenth,and
aho
stof
Renaissance
manuscriptsinclud
ingan
Aldineedition
that
hasbeen
rightly
regarded
asacodexop
timusin
which
generatio
nsof
hardly
negligibleGreek
scribesandscho
lars
triedtheirhand
satcorrectin
gby
conjecturethep
erceived
inaccuraciesor
corrup
tions
inthetext.Itisalso
inthee
nviablep
osition
ofbeingarguablyon
eofthe
mostcloselystud
ied
andscrutin
ized
ofallextantancient
Greek
philo
soph
icalwritings:ith
asenjoyedanu
mbero
fpre-m
odernedition
s,threem
odernedition
sbythe
mostrespected
scho
larsof
Greek
andof
ancientp
hilosoph
ythelatest
barelyfift
eenyearsago
(Usener
,Ro
ssandFo
bes
;Laks
&Most
)
,twoshortercommentaries
(RossandLaks
&Most)andtwo
moreextensiveon
es(van
Raalte
andHenrich),andafairnu
mberof
mod
erntransla
tions
into
mostE
urop
eanlanguages,includ
ingGreek.In
sheernu
mbers
ofpagesof
stud
yandcommentary
inprop
ortio
nto
the
dozenor
sofullpagesof
Greek
text,the
attentionithasc
ommandedis
impressiv
e,ifno
tuniqu
e.Und
erthesec
ircum
stancesthe
questio
nisreason
ablyaskedwhy
there
isneed
foryetanothercommentededition
.Togive
agenerala
nswer
first,I
will
refertotherecent
discussio
nof
thevery
questio
nby
Jacques
Brun
schw
ig,DoWeNeedNew
Edition
sofA
ncient
Philo
soph
y?1For
twoof
thethreemajor
reason
sgiven
byBrun
schw
ig,the
answ
erin
this
case
isaresoun
ding
yes.Th
eindirect
tradition
themedievalA
rabic
andLatin
transla
tionsisrich
inevidence
ofsig
nificance
forthe
edition
,
1In
R.W.Sharples,ed.,Perspectives
onGreek
Philosophy,Aldershot:A
shgate,,
.
-
xiv
prefac
e
whilere-reading
thekn
ownwitn
essesin
thelight
ofthisevidence
has
yieldedsomesup
eriorw
aystoun
derstand
thetext.Th
eLatin
transla
tion
inparticular
hasbeen
unjustifiably
neglected(it
givesus,for
one,the
originaltitleof
thework),w
hiletheArabictransla
tion,
thou
ghalready
used
togood
effectby
M.C
rubellier
inthelatest
edition
ofLaks
&Most,hasm
anymorerichestooff
erwhenanalyzed
indetail.Specifically,
andbriefly
put,theArabictransla
tion,
which
deriv
esfrom
adifferent
transliteratio
nof
anun
cialexem
plar
than
does
therestof
thetradition
,givesus
access
toaGreek
manuscripttradition
that
isdifferent
and
olderthanthatof
oure
arliestextant
manuscripts,the
famou
sVienn
ese
(J)andParisia
n(E)manuscripts
ofAristotle.A
saresult,
itgivesus
over
thirty
new
andsuperior
readings
(PartI,Chapter
.below)
asiz
eablenu
mbergiventhebrevity
ofthetext.Insomeof
thesecases,
itcorrob
orates
suggestio
nsandem
endatio
nsmadeby
scho
lars,n
otably
thoseby
Usener.And
inview
ofthefactthatitwas
madeby
oneof
the
prem
iertransla
tors
ofGreek
philo
soph
ical
texts,Is.haqibn-
.Hun
ayn,
itprovides
aglim
pseinto
theway
inwhich
thetext
was
understood
bya
scho
larof
thefirstclassic
alrenaissance,thatin
#Abb
asid
Baghdad,
who
was
closein
both
timeandapproach
tothelast
phaseof
liveGreek
philo
soph
yin
lateantiq
uity.
Re-reading
thew
itnessesalre
adyused
bymypredecessors,inthec
on-
text
ofthefirmer
understand
ingof
thetransm
issionof
thetext
pro-
videdby
theArabicandLatin
transla
tions,gives
usnewconfi
dencein
thesoun
dnessof
theparado
sis,the
text
astransm
itted
intheGreek
manuscripts,and
enablesu
sbettertoidentifytheprim
itive
errorsof
the
archetype(PartI,C
hapter
.below)a
ndlocatetheirp
lace
with
greater
precision
.Asa
result,
ithasb
eenpo
ssibleto
recogn
izeas
authentic
and
retain
anu
mberof
readings
previouslyconsidered
corrup
tand
tooff
ercorrectio
nsmorec
onsistent
with
thetransmitted
text.Th
isedition
isthe
mostcon
servativeo
fallprevious
onesinadhering
tothetextofthe
para-
dosis.
Togive
amoreparticular
answ
erto
Brun
schw
igsqu
estio
n,Isho
uld
addthatarelated
purposeo
fthisstudy
istodraw
thea
ttentionofclassic
alscho
lars
tothereal
valueof
medievalArabictransla
tions,whenever
extant,for
theestablish
mento
fthe
Greek
text.Itisno
exaggeratio
nto
saythat
therehasbeen
amon
gscho
lars
ofGreek
acertainhesitation,
beyond
theu
nderstandableo
neindu
cedby
therequirementofm
astering
Arabic,
toengage
with
thesetransla
tions,p
erhaps
becauseof
whatis
perceivedto
bethe
foganddarkness
oftheArabictext,in
thewords
ofBa
rnes,.Itistrue
thatBa
rneswas
talkingabou
tthe
textofthe
prefac
exv
Arabictransla
tionof
Ptolem
ys(al-G
harb)life
andworks
ofAristotle,
andno
tof
allArabictransla
tions,b
uttheperceptio
nhasbeen
quite
prevalent.2
Arabictransla
tions,likemanyaGreek
andLatin
text,m
aybe
clearor
foggyanddark,d
epending
onthecase,b
utthishasto
beprop
erly
assessed
andno
tsim
plystated.Inthecase
ofthelib
raries
ofbo
thAristotleandTh
eoph
rastus,w
ithwho
sefateBa
rneswas
concerned
inthat
article,itisparticularly
inapprop
riateto
callfoggyPtolem
ysArabictext,p
erhaps
theon
esin
gledo
cumentthat
repo
rtssomething
reliableandconcreteabou
tthe
workof
And
ronicus,whenallthe
Greek
evidence
onthematterisdarker
than
anything
that
Heraclitus
himself
couldhave
prod
uced.
Ontheotherhand
,tobe
fair,
itmusta
lsobe
stated
that
partof
the
prob
lemisthatthec
auseoftheA
rabictranslatio
nshasb
eenbadlys
erved
bythosewho
stud
iedthem
,generatingtheim
pressio
nof
theirfogand
darkness.3And
thisappliesalso
tothep
resentworkby
Theoph
rastus,the
valueof
who
seArabictransla
tionwas
notp
roperly
appreciated,
which
ledto
somenegativ
eassessments.4Itisactually
areliabletransla
tion,
or,topu
titmoreaccurately,
itisauseful
transla
tionto
mineforthe
underly
ingGreek
text.C
rubelliersworkin
theLaks
&Mosteditio
nhas
gone
someway
inestablish
ingthat,and
Ihavefollowed
theroad
toits
endin
thepresentstudy.
2Th
ecom
plaint
againstthe
disin
clinationby
classic
alscho
larsto
engage
with
Arabic
was
voiced
alreadyover
halfacenturyagoby
RichardWalzer,andindeed
inconn
ectio
nwith
thevery
Essayby
Theoph
rastus
editedin
thisvolume:Th
eoph
rastusm
etaphysic
alfragmentw
asre-edited,in
Oxford,abou
tyearsa
go,bytwoof
themostd
istinguish
edworkers
inthis
field
[RossandFo
bes].B
othof
them
wereun
awareof
thefact
that
theArabictext
existsin
theBo
dleian
library
andhadbeen
treatedby
thelate
Laud
ian
professoro
fArabic[M
argolio
uth],inapaperp
ublishedin
(O
ntheLegacy
ofthe
ClassicsintheIslamicWorld,Festschrift
Brun
oSnell,M
nchen:C
.H.B
eck,,
,
reprintedin
hisGreek
into
Arabic,O
xford:
Brun
oCassirer,,
).Itwou
ldbe
inaccurate
tosaythat
notm
uchhaschangedsin
cethen,b
uttheprob
lem
remains:the
corner
hasn
otbeen
turned
yet,andclassic
sdepartm
entsaren
otrushingto
teachArabic
asthethird
classic
allang
uage,atleastforstud
ents
inGreek
philo
soph
yandscience.
Whencetheaspiratio
nsof
thepresentstudy.
3Fore
xample,andagainin
thecase
ofthelives
ofAristotle,bytheworkof
Dring
,for
acritiqu
eof
who
sestatem
ents
ontheArabicevidence
seemyarticle,Th
eSpurious
andtheAuthenticin
theArabicLivesof
Aristotle,in
Pseudo-Aristo
tlein
the
MiddleAg
es.Th
eTh
eology
andOther
Texts,ed.byJ.Kraye,W
.F.R
yan,
andC.B.Schmitt
[Warbu
rgInstitu
teSurveysa
ndTexts,],Lo
ndon
,,pp
.;reprinted
inGutas
,no.VI.
4Like
thatexpressedby
vanRaalte
n
,thatwesho
uldbe
warnedagainstpu
tting
toomuchfaith
inthissource.
-
xvi
prefac
e
Themainissue,o
rtask,isthat
Arabictransla
tions
have
tobe
evalu-
ated
andprop
erlyassessed
andmined
case
bycase.Tothatend,whenit
wassuggestedtomethatI
preparec
riticaledition
sofboththeG
reek
and
Arabictextsof
thisworkby
Theoph
rastus,I
accepted
mainlybecauseI
sawthatthesameperson
working
onbo
thtextsw
ould
offer
theop
por-
tunity
tolaydo
wnsomegrou
ndrulesa
ndprocedures
abou
tthe
prop
ermetho
dto
befollowed
inGraeco-Arabicedition
s.Th
eseprocedures,as
they
developedin
thecourse
ofmystud
y,arepresentedin
theEx
cursus
attheendof
PartI.
Thisnewedition
ofOnFirstP
rinciples
byTh
eoph
rastus
thus
offers,
with
inthec
overso
fasin
glev
olum
e,theG
reek
textam
orec
onservative
one,with
renewed
faith
inthesoun
dnesso
fthe
parado
sisas
wellasa
llthee
videncethatcan
beused
foritsestablish
ment:asim
ultaneou
scritical
edition
ofthem
edievalA
rabictranslatio
nandad
iplomaticedition
ofthe
medievalLatintransla
tion.In
thisway
asou
ndedito
rialpracticethatw
asinitiated
overacenturyagohasn
owreachedits
fullim
plem
entatio
n.My
onetrue
predecessor,thepion
eerD
.S.M
argolio
uthof
Oxford,prepared
criticale
ditio
nsof
both
theGreek
text
ofthePo
eticsandits
medieval
Arabictransla
tion,
buthe
diditin
separate
publications
andwith
out
system
aticallyusingtheo
neforthe
benefitoftheo
ther.5In
allothercases
where
theArabicevidence
hasbeen
used
inedition
sof
Greek
works,
either
theGreek
andtheArabictextsw
ereeditedseparatelyby
different
scho
lars
ortheGreek
text
hasno
tsurvived.6It
ismyho
pethat
the
benefitso
fthe
single-author
approach
adop
tedin
thisstud
ywillbecome
sufficiently
evidentastorecommenditto
alleditorsof
Greek
works
that
exist
inmedievalA
rabictranslatio
ns,m
ostn
otablythoseo
fAristotleand
5D.S.M
argolio
uth,
Analecta
orientalia
adpoeticam
Aristotele
am,L
ondo
n:D.N
utt,
,and
TheP
oeticso
fAristo
tle,Lon
don:
Hod
dera
ndStou
ghton,.
6To
give
abriefreviewof
themostsalient
publications,A
.Gud
eman
editedagain
theGreek
text
ofthePo
etics(Be
rlin)m
akingfulluseof
J.Tk
atschs
earlier
edition
oftheArabictransla
tion(Vienn
a),tho
ughdu
eto
thedisparateapproaches
andun
derstand
ingof
prop
erprocedures
bythetwoscho
larstheresultwas
lessthan
sat-
isfactory.L
.Minio-Paluellos
Oxfordedition
oftheCategoriesandDeinterpreta-
tione
madeuseof
theSyriac
transla
tions
editedby
Kh.
Georr
(Beyrouth),bu
tthe
extent
towhich
theArabicversionhasy
etto
offer
newinform
ationremains
tobe
seen.
R.Walzere
ditedtheArabictransla
tionof
GalensOnMedicalEx
perience(O
xford),
butthe
Greek
texthasn
otsurvived;and
thesam
eapp
liestothem
agisterialpentaplaedi-
tionby
H.J.
DrossaartLu
lofsandE.L.J.Po
ortm
anof
NicolausDam
ascenu
ssDeplantis
(Amsterdam
).Finally,collections
offragmentsofancientautho
rsalso
startedusing
theA
rabice
vidence
notablyA.Smith
sTeub
nereditio
n()
ofPo
rphyrysfragments
(tho
ughD.W
asserstein
provided
onlytheEn
glish
transla
tionbu
tnot
theArabictext),
andFH
S&Gbu
tinthesecasesa
gain
theGreek
texthasn
otsurvived.
prefac
exv
ii
Galen.Itisalso
myho
pethatthem
etho
dologicalgroun
druleslaiddo
wn
intheE
xcursusw
illbe
followed
byfuturescho
larsand,mostimpo
rtantly,
improved;for
theGraeco-Arabist,theyprovideatestcase
ofedito
rial
procedures
thatwill
beof
benefit
toArabistsa
ndclassic
istsa
like.
TheArabictransla
tion,
inadditio
nto
itsvaluefortheestablish
ment
oftheG
reek
text,isa
won
derfuldo
cumentalso
becauseitrepresentsthe
firstextant
commentary
onthetextof
Theoph
rastus.H
erewecanwatch
acolleague
from
thep
ast
andthisisparticularlymeaning
fultothoseo
fus
who
have
tackledtheG
reek
texteither
toeditor
transla
teitor
both
grapplew
iththev
erysamep
roblem
sthatw
efaced,and
eitheradmire
his
perspicacitywhenwedeem
him
tohave
been
rightinhisinterpretation,
especiallyconsideringthecond
ition
sund
erwhich
heworked
canany
mod
ernscho
larimaginew
orking
onan
edition
ofanyG
reek
textwith
out
LSJ,K
hner-G
erth,or,in
Aristotelianstud
ies,with
outB
onitz
(and
now,
TLG)?or
behu
mbled
byhism
istakesin
thes
ecreth
opethatwhatn
owappearstous
astheobviou
slyrightinterpretationwill
notb
eshow
nby
afuture
scho
larto
have
been
just
aserroneou
s.Afterspending
many
(perhaps
toomany)
hoursin
thecompany
ofIs.haqtrying
together
tosolvethenu
merou
sprob
lemspresentedby
thetext
ofTh
eoph
rastus,I
have
felttheb
arrierso
ftim
e,place,andlanguage
thatseparateus
dissolve
andleavebehind
justthesheerenjoym
ento
fsharedscho
larship,
both
philo
logicaland
philo
soph
ical.
Acknow
ledgments
Thesupp
orta
ndhelp
which
Ireceivedin
thepreparationof
thisstud
yby
friend
sand
colleaguesin
classic
sandancientp
hilosoph
ysurpassall
boun
dsof
scho
larly
coop
erationandgenerosity.Th
eIslamictradition
,on
thebasis
ofapassagein
theQur
"anin
which
theProp
hetissaidno
tto
have
been
stingy
with
prop
agatingits
message
(wa-mahu
wa
#ala
l-gaybibi- .dan
n,Q
.),h
asalwaysconsidered
sharinglib
erally
ones
know
ledgeas
deservingof
paradise.L
eaving
toAllahthedispensatio
nof
paradise,I
canon
lyoff
erwith
genu
inepleasure
mysin
cere
gratitu
de.
When,
after
thepu
blicationin
ofFH
S&G,itw
asdecidedthat
theTh
eoph
rastus
projectw
ouldcontinue
with
anedition
ofhiso
puscula,
BillFortenbaugh,ou
rprimus
interp
ares,suggested
thatIu
ndertake
the
task
ofediting
both
theG
reek
textandthem
edievalA
rabictranslatio
nof
whath
asbeen
know
nas
Theoph
rastussMetaphysics.Despitemyreser-
vatio
ns,I
eventually
agreed
forthereason
Istatein
thePrefaceabove.
-
xviii
prefac
e
Iam
trulygrateful
toBill(F),bu
talso
toPamela(H
)andBo
b(S),for
theidea,for
thisop
portun
ityoff
ered
toasin
gleperson
form
allyto
work
onbo
thtexts,andforthe
subsequent
unwaveringsupp
ort.Th
eyshou
ldkn
owthatwith
outtheirhelpthisstud
ycou
ldhave
neverb
eencompleted.
Inthem
eantim
e,MichelC
rubellier,w
hohadcollabo
ratedwith
And
rLaks
andGlenn
Mostin
thepreparationof
Laks
&Most()
byprovidinginform
ationabou
tIs.haqs
Arabictransla
tion,
andwho
had
publish
edarelatedarticle(),w
ashimselfpreparingan
edition
ofit.
Crubellier
decidedmostgraciou
slyto
with
draw
from
hisp
rojectand,
with
unparalleledgenerosity,
sent
mehisdraft
edition
,cop
iesof
the
Arabicmanuscripts,and
relatedmaterial.Hehassavedmebo
thtim
eandeffortinthisalreadylong-w
indedproject,andIh
avetrulybenefited
from
hisprelim
inarywork,
towhich
Ireferin
myno
tes(see
Part
I,Chapter
.).Th
ereareno
words
tothankhim,and
Ionlyho
pethatthe
resultof
myendeavorsm
eetsthehigh
standardsthath
ewou
ldhave
set
forh
isow
nedition
.Other
friend
sandcolleagueswereequally
generous
insend
ingme
materialsup
onrequ
esta
ndansw
eringnaggingqu
estio
ns.G
lenn
Most
mostkind
lysent
meprelim
inarycopies
ofmanuscripts
JandPand
answ
ered
questio
nsabou
tthe
apparatuscriticusof
Laks
&Most;Mar-
lein
vanRaalte
obliginglysent
mecopies
ofUseners
edition
ofthework
andrelatedmaterial;En
rico
Bertiand
PamelaH
ubyw
erek
indenou
ghto
sharewith
medraft
sof
unpu
blish
edpapers;M
ichelC
acou
rospatiently
provided
initial
help
with
readingthekn
ottierpartsof
manuscriptP;
RdigerA
rnzenoff
ered
keen
commentsandsoun
dadvice
onthemeth-
odologicalexcursus;m
ylongtim
eYalecolleague
andfriend
VictorB
ers
provided
speedy
andtim
elyrespon
sesto
manyan
abstruse
queryon
Greek
morho
logy
andsyntax;m
ymostrecent
andwelcomeYale
col-
league
VerityHarteshed
muchneeded
illum
inationon
Heracliteanbib-
liography;and
mystud
entM
atteoDiG
iovann
iobliginglycastacritical
eyeon
Bartho
lomew
sLatin
transla
tionandbenefited
mewith
hisc
om-
ments.Inadditio
n,aC
NRS
grantawardedthroughtheinitiativ
eand
sup-
portof
HenriHugon
nard-Roche
andMarou
nAou
adof
that
venerable
institu
tionof
prem
ierresearchenabledmeto
spendasabb
aticalterm
inPariswhere
Icouldbenefit
from
interactionwith
theseandothercol-
leaguesa
ndbeginworking
onthefin
alstages
oftheprojectinidealcir-
cumstances.Iam
deeplyindebted
tothem
all.
Anearlier
draft
oftheintrod
uctio
nto
theGreek
text
(PartI,C
hap-
ter),the
text
itselfw
iththeEn
glish
transla
tion,
andthecommentary
wereread
andcommentedup
onwith
scho
larly
care
andgreatp
atience
prefac
exix
byPeterA
damson,BillFo
rtenbaugh,PamelaHub
y,PaulKalligas,D
avid
Reism
an,R
obertS
harples,Leon
ardo
Tarn,
andMarlein
vanRaalte.In
additio
n,allofthem
werequ
ickto
respon
dby
e-mailtoqu
erieso
nindi-
vidu
alpassagesandproblems.Igreatlybenefited
from
theirlearned
com-
ments,and
,ifI
thankthem
collectivelyhereinsteadof
inmanyano
tein
theb
odyofthew
ork,itison
lyto
sparethe
readerfrom
mytediou
srepe-
titionofgratitu
dewhich,tho
ughsparselyregistered,isind
eedprofou
nd.
Forthe
shortcom
ings
thatremainIa
lone
amrespon
sible.
Mystud
entsin
myGraeco-Arabics
eminar
atYale,w
ithdifferent
gen-
erations
ofwho
mIreadthistext
byTh
eoph
rastus,n
oton
lyaskedpen-
etratin
gqu
estio
nsthathelped
meartic
ulatemytheses
andmymetho
dsbette
r,bu
tonoccasio
nalso
provided
suggestio
nsforthe
prop
erreading
oftheArabictext.Th
ough
Iwill
introd
ucetwoof
them
here
byname,
becausethey
appear
intheapparatus
Amos
BertolacciandAlexand
erTreiger
allo
fthem
who
participated
intheseminarsmadeinvaluable
contribu
tions,for
which
Iamtrulyg
rateful.Th
ereisn
ogreaterh
appiness
fora
teacherthanto
have
stud
entsfrom
who
mhe
canlearn.
Onthetechnicalside,to
thelib
raries
atVienn
a(
sterreichische
Na-
tionalbiblio
thek)and
Paris(Bibliothque
Nationale),Oxford(Bod
leian)
andTehran
(Malik),go
mythanks
forthe
useof
theirinvaluablemanu-
scrip
tsup
onwhich
thisedition
ofTh
eoph
rastus
isbased.Aspecialw
ord
ofthanks
isalso
duetothestaffandthelibrary
system
atYaleUniversity,
mylifelon
gresource,w
hich
Inever
took
forg
ranted.Th
eedito
rialteam
atBrill,w
ithMmes
VanErpandVa
nderWel,and
theirtypesette
rsat
TATZe
twerk,with
MessrsG
eradtsandRu
stenbu
rg,deserve
both
special
thanks
fortheircourtesy,efficiency,and
professio
nalism,and
admira
tion
forexpertlyprod
ucingavery
complicated
text
inthreealph
abets.Ia
malso
grateful
fortheexcellent
edition
ofthetext
inLaks
&Mostand
itsprod
ucers,asoun
dfoun
datio
nup
onwhich
Icou
ldbu
ild,and
,lastb
utno
tleast,for
thew
ondero
fthe
Internetage,theT
LG(Th
esau
rusL
inguae
Graecae),with
outw
hich
classic
alandBy
zantineGreek
stud
iesc
anno
whardly
beenvisaged(and
dueto
which
wewon
derallthe
moreat
our
predecessors,w
howorkedwith
outit).
Inclosing,
Iwish
toexpressmygratitu
de"
to
mywife
Ioanna,w
hohasfashion
edou
rlife
together
into
awelcomingspacefor
allm
usestoresid
e,with
aselflesslove
thatsurpassesu
nderstanding.Th
isbo
okisas
muchhersas
itismine.
New
Haven,February
-
ABB
REVIATIONSANDRE
FERE
NCEWORK
S
Allan
Notes
byD.J.Allanin
hisc
opyof
Ross&Fo
bes,as
repo
rted
byLaks
&Most
Blau
J.Blau,A
Grammar
ofCh
ristian
Arabic,Lou
vain:
Secrtariatd
uCorpu
sSCO,
Burnikel
Burnikel
CAG
Commentariain
Aristotele
mGraeca,consilioet
auctoritateAcademiaeLitte
rarum
Regiae
Borussicae,
Berlin:Georg
Reim
er,
Crubellier
M.C
rubellier,unediteddraft
edition
oftheEssayby
Theoph
rastus
CWA
TheC
ompleteW
orks
ofAr
istotle.Th
eRevise
dOxford
Tran
slatio
n,editedby
J.Ba
rnes,P
rinceton
:Princeton
University
Press,
Denniston
Denniston
,J.D.,Th
eGreek
Particles,O
xford:Clarend
onPress,
DK
H.D
ielsandW.K
ranz,D
ieFragmentederV
orsokratiker,
vols,
Dub
lin/Zrich:Weidm
ann,
12(6)
Dozy
R.Dozy,Supplmenta
uxDictio
nnairesA
rabes,Leiden:
E.J.Brill,;repr.B
eirut:Librairiedu
Liban,
DPh
A,-SupplementDictio
nnairedesP
hilosophesAn
tiques,ed.R
.Gou
let,
Paris:CNRS
,ff
.EI
2En
cyclo
paediaofIslam
,nd
ed.,Leiden:B
rill,
EIr
Encyclo
paediaIranica,Winon
aLake,Ind
iana:
Encyclop
aediaIranicaFo
undatio
n,
ff.FH
S&G
Theophrastu
sofE
resus.Sourcesfor
HisLife,W
ritings,
Thought&
Influ
ence,editedandtransla
tedby
WilliamW.Fortenb
augh,Pam
elaHub
y,Ro
bert
W.Sharples(Greek
andLatin
),andDim
itriG
utas
(Arabic),
vols,
Leiden:B
rill,
Fischer
W.Fischer,A
Grammar
ofClassicalArabic,rd
revised
ed.,transl.
byJ.Ro
dgers,New
Haven:YaleUniversity
Pess,
Fobes
InRo
ssandFo
bes
,thatp
arto
fthe
Introd
uctio
nwhich
dealsw
iththeMSS(pp.xxvixxxii),
the
apparatuscriticus,andthe
Indexes
GAL,
GALS
C.B
rockelmann,
Geschichted
erarabischenLitte
ratur,
Leiden:B
rill,2;Sup
plem
ent
GALex
G.E
ndressandD.G
utas,eds,A
Greek
andArabic
Lexicon,Leiden:B
rill,
ff.
-
xxii
abbr
eviation
sand
referenc
ewor
ks
GAS
F.Sezgin,G
eschichted
esarabischenSchrifttums,Leiden:
Brill,ff
.Henrich
Henrich
Hum
bert
J.Hum
bert,Syntaxe
grecqu
e,Paris:Klin
cksie
ck,3,
Irigoin
J.Irigoin,
Rglesetrecomman
datio
nspour
lesdition
scritiqu
es,Paris:
LesB
ellesL
ettres,
K.-G
.K
hner,R
.,andB.
Gerth,A
usfhrliche
Grammatik
derg
riechischenSprache,.Teil:Satzleh
re,
vols,
Hanno
ver/Leipzig:Hahn,
Kazim
irski
A.deB.
Kazim
irski,D
ictio
nnaireArabe-Fran
ais,
Paris:
Maisonn
euve,;repr.B
eirut:Librairiedu
Liban,n.d.
Kley
Kley
Laks
&Most
Laks
andMost
Lampe
G.W
.H.L
ampe,A
PatristicGreek
Lexicon,Oxford:Th
eClarend
onPress,
Lane
E.W.L
ane,An
Arabic-EnglishLexicon,Lo
ndon
:Williams
andNorgate,,repr.Be
irut:Librairiedu
Liban,
LSJ
AGreek-EnglishLexicon,compiledby
H.G.Liddell
andR.
Scott,revisedandaugm
entedthrougho
utby
SirH
.S.Jon
eswith
theassistanceof
R.McK
enzieand
with
thecoop
erationof
manyscho
lars,w
itharevised
supp
lement
;Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press,
vanRaalte
vanRaalte
Ross
InRo
ssandFo
bes
,theText,the
English
transla
tion,
theIntrod
uctio
nexcept
forthe
partdealingwith
the
MSS,and
theCom
mentary
RUSC
HRu
tgersU
niversity
Stud
iesinClassicalHum
anities,
W.W
.Fortenb
augh
etal.,eds,New
Brun
swickand
Lond
on:Transactio
n,
ff.Schw
yzer
E.Schw
yzer,G
riechische
Grammatik,auf
derG
rund
lage
vonKa
rlBrugmanns
GriechischerG
rammatik..B
and,
Allgem
einerT
eil,La
utleh
re,W
ortbild
ung,Flexion;.
Band
,Syntaxun
dSyntaktischeS
tilistik;.B
and,Registe
r(H
andbuchderA
ltertum
swise
schaft,
II,.-e),Mn
chen:
Beck,,,
Smyth
H.W
.Smyth,
Greek
Grammar,C
ambridge,M
A:H
arvard
University
Press,,,
SVF
J.vonArnim
,ed.,Stoicorum
Veterum
Fragmenta,Leipzig:
Teub
ner,
Treiger
Person
alcommun
icationby
Alexand
erTreiger
Tricot
Tricot
TLG
Thesau
rusL
inguae
Graecae,w
ww.tlg
.uci.edu
West
M.L.W
est,Textua
lCriticism
andEd
itorialTechniqu
e,Stuttgart:Teub
ner,
abbr
eviation
sand
referenc
ewor
ksxx
iii
WGA
,-S
M.U
llmann,
Wrterbuchzu
dengriechisch-arabischen
bersetzungen
des
.Jahrhun
derts,Wiesbaden:
Harrassow
itz,;Supplement
,,
WKAS
M.U
llmann,
Wrterbuchderk
lassichenarabischen
Sprache,Wiesbaden:H
arrassow
itz,ff
.Wright
W.W
right,AGrammar
oftheA
rabicL
anguage,rded.,
Cam
bridge:U
niversity
Press,
Abbreviatio
nsofWorks
byAr
istotlean
dTh
eophrastu
s
Aristotle
APo.
Analyticaposte
riora
APr.
Analyticapriora
Cat.
Categories
DA
Dea
nima
DC
Dec
aelo
EEEu
demianEthics
GA
Deg
eneratione
anim
alium
GC
Deg
eneratione
etcorrup
tione
HA
Historiaan
imalium
Int.
Deinterpretatione
MA
Dem
otuanim
alium
Met.
Metaphysics
Mete.
Meteorology
NE
Nicom
achean
Ethics
PADep
artib
usanim
alium
Phys.
Physics
Poet.
Poetics
Rhet.
Rhetoric
SESophisticielenchi
Top.
Topics
Theoph
rastus
CPDec
ausis
plantarum
HP
Historiaplantarum
Ign.
Deigne
Mete.
Meteorologica
Vent.
Dev
entis
-
part
i
INTR
ODUCTIONTO
THETE
XTS
-
chap
teron
e
INTR
ODUCTIONTO
THEES
SAY1
.Dateo
fCom
position
Hisdeathb
edcomplaint
abou
tthe
brevity
ofhu
man
lifeno
twith
stand-
ing,Th
eoph
rastus
lived
toarip
eoldage(
/
/
bc).2
Inthe
course
ofthe
yearso
fhislife,theGreek
speaking
world
inwhich
hegrew
andwasintellectually,socially,and
historicallyform
ed,saw
trem
en-
dous
changes.Be
forehe
waseven
fifty,theG
reek
citystateswhich,ascity
states,con
stitu
tedtheon
lypo
liticalform
ationhe
knew
,losttheirinde-
pend
ence
underM
acedon
iando
minationafter
thebattleof
Chairo
neia
(),while
thegreatem
pire
ofthePersianKingof
Kings
that
had
dominated
Greek
historyforsomecenturieswas
destroyedby
Alexan-
der,theform
erstud
ento
fhisteacherandcolleague,A
ristotle.A
ndhe
lived
forcloseto
anotherfortyyearsafter
theseeventsto
seethesuc-
cessor
states
foun
dedby
Alexand
ersgeneralstake
root
andchange
for-
ever
thepo
litical
andcultu
ralscene
oftheGreek
world
andtheEa
st-
ernMediterranean.
Inhisperson
allife,he
wentfrom
hisbirthp
lace
intheob
scurevillage
ofEresos
insouthw
estL
esbo
stobecome,after
many
turns,thescholarch
oftheP
eripatos,a
positionhe
heldfora
good
thirty
fiveyears.Bu
titwas
thechangesin
intellectualh
istorythat
werethe
mostd
ramatic.Inhislifetim
e,andforthemostp
artthrou
ghhispar-
ticipation,
philo
soph
ydevelopedfrom
theearly
literarySocratic
mus-
ings
ofPlatotoad
ominant
indeed,dom
ineeringandestablish
eddis-
ciplineof
high
erthou
ghtw
hose
practicewas
alreadypu
rsued,with
dif-
ferent
orientations
andmetho
ds,infour
distinct
areasof
Athens,the
Academy,theLyceum
,the
Stoa,and
theGarden.
Asayoun
gman
he
1Forthe
sake
ofbrevity
Iwillbe
referringtothew
orkeditedandstud
iedinthisbo
okas
theEssay.
2In
anticipationofthec
ommentary
volumeo
ntheb
iographicalm
aterialinFH
S&G,
seethecriticala
ssessm
entof
thesourceson
thelifeof
Theoph
rastus
byMejer
,
complem
entedby
Dorandi
.For
thed
eathbedcomplaintso
fTheoph
rastus
seefr.
FH
S&G.
-
ch
apteron
e
may
have
heardPlato(w
eareno
tcertain),3
butw
henhe
went(back?)to
Athensw
ithAristotlein
,Speusip
push
adalreadybeen
succeededby
Xenocratesa
sheadoftheA
cademy,andlater,whenhe
was
himselfhead
oftheP
eripatos,hiscolleaguesintheA
cademywerestillX
enocratesand
then
Polemon
.Hewas,m
oreover,theoldercontem
porary
ofZe
no,the
foun
dero
fStoicism
,4andofEp
icurus.5Th
ecrucialperiod
ofthefou
nda-
tionofancientphilosoph
yofallphilosoph
ywhich
wereadandstud
y,Th
eoph
rastus
lived
throughandhelped
form
.Given
therapidevolution
ofph
ilosoph
ydu
ring
thislengthyperiod
,the
questio
nof
thedate
onwhich
hisE
ssay
onfirstprinciples
was
writtenisof
singularimpo
rtance
foritsun
derstand
ingandevaluatio
n.In
theabsenceof
anindepend
entsou
rcedatin
gtheEssay,its
contents
andtheirrelationto
currentideas
andtheworks
ofTh
eoph
rastusscon-
tempo
rarieshave
from
thev
erybeginn
ingconstituted
them
eans
toesti-
matethetim
eof
itscompo
sition.
Thefactthatin
theEssayTh
eoph
ras-
tusisp
rimafacieseen
ascriticizing
twoof
Aristotlessignature
theories,
theun
moved
mover
andteleology,coup
ledwith
whatI
interpreta
san
inabilityon
thep
artofm
ostscholarstoentertaineven
thep
ossib
ilitythat
adisciplecouldconceivablycriticize
hism
aster
andindeed
theph
ilo-
soph
icalgenius
ofalltim
edu
ring
themasters
lifetim
e,ledearly
tothe
view
,which
hassurvived
until
very
recently,
thattheEssaywas
written
afterthed
eathofAristotlein.
6Bu
talre
adyin,inastudy
ofspon
-taneou
sgeneration,
Balm
esuggestedthattheEssaymay
beearlier
than
AristotlesD
egeneratione
anim
alium
andHistoriaan
imalium
VV
I,and
3Forasummaryof
earlier
view
sseeGaiser,
.O
nlyDiogenesLaertiu
smentio
ns,twice,thatTh
eoph
rastus
stud
iedwith
Plato,atIII.
andV..Intheform
erpassage,in
thebiograph
yof
Plato,
heascribes
therepo
rtto
anon
ymou
ssources(%
...,),which
makes
itdu
biou
s,althou
ghin
thelatte
r,in
thebiograph
yprop
erof
Theoph
rastus,heiscategorical(
3
'
..."
4
,5
6upsilonacute$
'
).Itish
ighlyun
likelythatas-Sahrastan
(d.
),the
only
otherauthor
that
states
that
Theoph
rastus
was
astud
entof
Plato
(fr.c
FHS&
G),hadan
independ
entsource
worthyof
credence.N
evertheless,the
evidence
inDiogenesL
aertiusc
anno
tbeeasilywaivedaw
ay,w
hilethequ
estio
nitselfis
also
relatedtotheo
therqu
estio
nabou
tthe
presence
ofTh
eoph
rastus
inAssos
afterPlatos
death;
seethesensiblediscussio
nsof
thematerialb
yMejer
,
andDorandi
,,andcf.note
below.
4SeeLo
ng.
5SeeSedley
.
6Be
rti,
givesavery
useful
summaryof
thehistoryof
thisdebate,
which
Imostly
follow.
Thelisto
fthe
supp
ortersof
apo
st-A
ristoteliandateforthe
Essay
includ
eJaeger
,
;R
ossp.
xxv;
Regenb
ogen
,
;
Tricot
p.viii;
Theiler
,
/;R
eale,;van
Raalte
,;van
Raalte
;Ro
mani
,
;D
illon
,n
.
intr
oduc
tion
toth
eessay
in
D.F
rede
was
ableto
show
that
Theoph
rastusscriticism
ofthe
unmoved
moverisdirected
atan
earlierstageo
fthattheory.Otherstud
-iesfollowed
alon
gtheselin
es,tothepo
intthattod
aytheearly
date
ofcompo
sitionof
theEssayhasfou
ndwideacceptance.
Themainargumentin
supp
ortof
this
revisedview
hasbeen
that
Theoph
rastus
isarguingeither
infavorof
oragainstp
osition
sheld
byAristotleearlier
inhislife,orthat,hadTh
eoph
rastus
know
nthemature
works
byAristotleatthee
ndofthelatters
career,hec
ouldno
thavew
rit-
tenwhath
edid,infact,w
rite.Briefly
toreview
thisevidence,the
follow-
ingargumentsandpassages
intheEssayindicate
that
theAristotelian
workto
which
they
correspo
ndhadno
tyetbeen
compo
sedandthatthis
workwas
actuallyaresponse
toTh
eoph
rastussaporeticdiscussio
n,and
thus
tempo
rally
posterior.
Arguablythemosttellin
gcharacteristicof
theEssayin
thisregard,as
Devereux
hassho
wn,isthefactthatTh
eoph
rastus
know
snothing
ofthec
entralandlatestbo
okso
fAristotlesM
etaphysicsb
utconcentratesall
hiscom
mentson
theo
lderbo
oksand
especiallyon
book
Lambd
a.7Re
ale
,
,also
stud
iedthecloseconn
ectio
nbetweentheEssayand
Book
Lambd
abu
t,assumingtheEssayto
bepo
st-A
ristotelian,
wanted
toarguein
favorof
alate
date
forLambd
a.How
ever,the
early
date
ofLambd
acan
hardlybe
disputed
onmanyg
roun
ds,including
thee
vidence
from
theEssay.In
additio
n,thepassageon
astron
omyat
a
inthe
Essay,which
canbe
completed
with
thehelp
oftheArabictransla
tion,
pointsun
mistakablyto
Lambd
a,makingthismuchdiscussedchapter
ofBo
okLambd
acontem
porary
with
theearly
date
oftherest
ofthe
Book.8
Followingthelead
ofBa
lme,Most
a
analyzed
tenbiologicalpas-
sages,
which
areprob
lematic
forAristotelian
teleology,
discussedat
banda
intheEssay.AsM
ostd
emon
strated,someo
fthe
difficulties
raise
dby
Theoph
rastus
weresubsequentlyresolved
byAris-
totle
intheDepartibus
anim
alium
andDegeneratio
nean
imalium,thu
sestablish
ingtheearlier
dateof
theEssay.
Inasim
ilarv
ein,Devereux
pointedtootherfeaturesintheE
ssay
which
reflect
discussio
nsof
passages
intheearly
booksof
Aristotles
7Th
eoph
rastussuseof
Lambd
awas
alreadydo
cumentedby
Zeller
,.
8Th
usjustify
ingtheskepticism
ofKrmer,n
(dieS
ptdatierung
von
unbewiesenun
dm.E.unb
eweisbar
ist);see
furtherthe
commentary
onthefirstApo
ria
inPartIIIb
elow
.Frede
,
summarized
theargumentsin
favoro
fanearly
and
unified
Book
Lambd
a;cf.also
Devereux,
andno
te.
-
ch
apteron
e
Metaphysicsandof
otherearly
works
butno
tthelateron
es,asin
the
case
oftherelatio
nof
focalm
eaning
inanalyses
ofkn
owledge(pp.
).Tothesem
aybe
addedthefollowingfrom
myanalysisoftheE
ssay.
Atb
Theoph
rastus
raised
aproblem
abou
tthemotioninitiated
bytheun
moved
mover
astheobject
ofdesire,
aproblem
directed
atAristotlesM
etaphysics
,a.Aristotlerespon
dedintheD
eanima
,
b,refining
hispo
sition(see
thecommentary
following
Diapo
ria.in
PartIIIb
elow
).Again,at
baTh
eoph
rastus
asked
whether
andho
wtheinflu
ence
ofthefirstcausecanpenetrateinto
the
sublun
arrealm
andbenefit
thenaturalw
orld;A
ristotle
respon
dedin
Deg
eneratione
etcorrup
tione
B,ba(see
thecommentary
followingDiapo
ria
.in
PartIIIb
elow
).In
allthesecasesthe
tempo
ral
priorityof
theEssayisestablish
edby
thefact
that
hadtheworks
byAristotle
inwhich
theseissuesareresolved
alreadybeen
writtenand
availableto
Theoph
rastus
whenhe
was
writingtheEssay,he
couldno
thave
raised
theobjections
ordifficulties
thathe
did.
Allof
theevidence
listedaboveindicatesthat
theEssaywas
written
before
Metaphysics
9,D
egeneratio
neetcorrup
tione,D
eanim
a,De
partibus
anim
alium,D
egeneratione
anim
alium,and
Historia
anim
alium
VV
I.Th
ismeans,essentia
lly,thatitw
aswrittenbeforethem
ajor
literary
activ
ityofAristotleafterhisreturntoAthensinb
c.Specifically,ith
asbeen
argued
byP.Lo
uisthatD
epartib
usan
imalium
was
writtenarou
nd,andby
RossthatDeanim
awas
writtenaft
er.
9According
lythe
date
ofcompo
sitionof
theEssay,sin
ceitwas
writtenbefore
both
De
partibus
anim
alium
andDea
nima,mustb
earou
nd.Th
esedatesa
reno
tprecise
totheyear,n
aturally,
butthe
bulk
oftheevidence
makes
itindisputablethat
theEssaymusth
avebeen
writte
nat
thelatestat
the
very
beginn
ingof
Aristotlessecond
andfin
alstay
inAthens(between
and).
Thisdatin
gisfixed
onthebasis
oftherelatio
nestablish
edby
some
scho
lars
betweentheEssayandtheworks
ofAristotle.Othershave
arriv
edatasim
ilarassessmentw
henconsideringtherelatio
nsof
Theo-
phrastus
with
theAcademy.
Krmer
inparticular
(asalso,e
ar-
lier,Krmer
,
n)do
cumentedtheconstant
presence
ofthe
Pythagorean-clad
Platon
ismof
theAcademy
inthebackgrou
ndand
noton
lythrougho
uttheEssay,
andespecially
theprom
inentplace
9P.Lo
uis,ed.,Ar
istote.Lesp
artiesd
esanim
aux,Paris:LesB
ellesL
ettres,p.xvii;
Ross,,wherethedateof
Aristotlesreturnto
Athensism
isprinted
asinstead
of.
intr
oduc
tion
toth
eessay
accorded
totheideasof
Speusip
pus,so
that
hecouldsuggest(p.
)
that
theEssaychrono
logically
shou
ldbe
locatedin
aperiod
whenthe
philo
soph
yof
Speusip
pus(d.)
was
still
very
muchalive.
Indeed
Krmeraskedavery
impo
rtantquestion(p.),whetherthep
roximity
toPlaton
icpo
sitions
thatareseenintheE
ssay
(forexample,thefavorable
presentatio
nby
Theoph
rastus
oftheun
writtenPlaton
icdo
ctrine
ofthe
onea
ndindefin
itedyad
atb
ff.;see
thec
ommentary
inPartIIIb
elow
)isareturn
toPlaton
ismor
indicativ
eofanearlierstageinTh
eoph
rastuss
developm
ent,correspo
ndingto
that
oftheearly
Aristotle.G
iven
the
conclusio
narriv
edat
intheprecedingparagraphabou
tthe
latestdate
onwhich
theE
ssay
couldhave
been
written(ca.),the
firstalternative
inKrmersqu
estio
ncanbe
safely
exclud
ed.S
imilarconclusio
nswere
reachedby
Berti(,preprint)whendiscussin
gthe
positions
exhibited
intheEssayabou
tthe
movem
ento
fthe
heavensandthekn
owledgeof
thefirstprinciples.Inadditio
nto
thesestud
ies,thatTh
eoph
rastus
inthe
Essaywas
philo
soph
ically
closeto
Platon
icpo
sitions
isalso
show
nby
thefact
that
heseem
sto
usetheword$
(at
b),meaning
paradigmaticcausein
thePlaton
icsense,
muchas
itwas
used
byAristotleon
lyin
hise
sotericworks
andon
ceon
lyin
theearliestp
arto
ftheP
hysics(b),which
datefrom
Aristotlesfi
rstresidence
inAthens
(see
thecommentary
onbbelowin
PartIII).A
llthisthen
raises
the
next
questio
n,whether
itispo
ssibleto
datetheEssayeven
earlier
than
b
c.In
hislandm
arkstud
yon
thedevelopm
ento
fthe
naturalp
hilosoph
yof
Theoph
rastus
andAristotle,G
aiser
,,dated
AristotlesD
egen-
eratione
etcorrup
tione
andMeteorology
IIII,or
atleasttheirprelim
inary
versions,totheperiod
ofAristotlesresidence
inAssos
(),right
after
thedeathof
Plato.
Followingthemajority
opinion(sum
marized
onpp.),Gaiserm
aintainedthatTh
eoph
rastus
also
was
presentin
Assos
atthetim
e,athesis
which
hisstudy
wasexpressly
intend
edfurther
tocorrob
orate(p.
).A
ssum
ingthat
thisisso,10
andif,
asmentio
ned
10Th
ereisno
independ
ente
videnceforTh
eoph
rastusssojournin
Assos
otherthan
twomutilatedpapyri
texts,
inon
eof
which
thenameof
Theoph
rastus
may
appear
inassociationwith
Assos
(Didym
us,InDem
osthenem
commenta,c
ol.
,Pearson-
Stephens)andin
theotheritmay
beim
plied(Philodemus,PH
erc.
,col.V,),
both
assessed
positivelyby
Gaiser,
(and
repeated
byK.G
aiser,Ph
ilodems
Academ
ica,
Stuttgart-Ba
dCannstatt:
From
mann-Holzboo
g,,and),bu
treview
ednegativ
elyby
A.M
.Battegazzore,
IlTh
eophrast
inAssos
diKon
radGaiser,
Elenchos
()
,at.Nevertheless,Gaisers
overallthesis
canhardly
-
ch
apteron
e
above,AristotlesD
egeneratio
neetcorrup
tione
respon
dsto
theEssayby
Theoph
rastus,thenthereisavery
realpo
ssibilitythatthelatte
rwas
also
writtendu
ring
thesameperiod
inAssos.Furthermore,if,
asIsuggestin
thecommentary,the
word6
atain
theEssayrefersto
oris
anecho
ofAristotles6
inMeteorology
b,and
Meteorol-
ogyIIIIw
asalso
compo
sedin
Assos,thenso
was
Theoph
rastussEssay.
Theseconsiderations
makeitcertainlypo
ssible,and
very
muchprob
-able,thatthe
Essaymay
have
been
writtenin
Assos,givingus
as
the
earliestd
ateof
compo
sition.
According
ly,itcanbe
maintainedwith
asmuchcertaintyas
ispo
ssiblein
such
casesthatTh
eoph
rastussOnFirst
Principles
was
writtenin
theperiod
betweenand.Be
yond
this
wehave
nohard
andfastevidence
thatwill
allowus
tobe
moreprecise,
buto
nlyperson
alandconsidered,I
might
add
view
s.Mineisthatit
was
writtenin
Assos.A
mon
gconsiderations
basedon
evaluatio
nof
the
natureandpu
rposeo
fthe
Essay(fo
rafulldiscussio
nseesectio
nbelow
inthischapter),the
followingareof
relevance.
Thefou
rteen-yearspan
betweenandcoversaturbu
lentperiod
inthelives
ofAristotle
andTh
eoph
rastus.A
fterthefirsttwoor
three
yearsin
Assos,w
hich
werepo
ssibly
themostsettled
ones,theyspent
anothertwoor
threeinMytilene,and
then
therestinMacedon
ia,w
here
Aristotlewas
tutoring
Alexand
er,beforetheire
ventualreturnto
Athens
in.
Theyearsin
Assos
have
been
seen
asacontinuatio
nof
the
philo
soph
icalclim
atea
ndmilieu
oftheA
cademy:Jaeger,,called
thegatheringof
philo
soph
ersthere
acolony
oftheAthenianAcademy,
...the
foun
datio
noftheschoo
lofA
ristotle,andGaiser
,,agreed.
Duringthisp
eriodSpeusip
pusw
ashead
oftheA
cademyinAthens,while
Xenocratesw
asmostprobablywith
AristotleandTh
eoph
rastus
inAssos.
And
thesearepreciselythedram
atispersonae
intheEssay:
Platoand
thePy
thagoreans
who
providethefram
ework
with
thePy
thagoreans
ArchytasandEu
rytusactually
mentio
nedby
name
Speusip
pusand
bediscou
nted
both
onits
ownmerits
andon
thebasis
ofotherc
ircum
stantia
levidence,
adum
brated
byDorandi
,
.Th
ereis,
finally,
theaddedconsiderationthat
itwou
ldseem
improb
ablethatTh
eoph
rastus
couldhave
hadas
good
aninsid
ekn
owledge
of,ore
specially
aperson
alstakein,the
discussio
nsin
theAcademy,as
indicatedin
this
very
Essayandas
justdescribedin
theprecedingparagraph,
hadhe
met
Aristotlefor
thefirsttim
eon
lywhenthelatte
rcam
eto
Mytilene
after
Assos
in,andhadactually
been
presentinan
Academicenvironm
entfor
thefi
rsttim
einhislife
onlywhenAristotle
returned
toAthensin.
intr
oduc
tion
toth
eessay
Xenocrates,andAristotle,o
fcourse,a
ndhisnew
theories
abou
tthe
unmoved
moverandteleology;thatthep
re-Socraticsarebu
tmarginalat
best,asK
rmer
,
observed,isfurther
indicatio
nthattheEssay
isno
tsomuchasystem
aticrun-throughofallopinion
sonthesub
jectof
firstprinciplesbu
tapresentatio
nofthev
iewsh
eldby
thep
eoplea
ctually
participatinginthed
iscussion,eitherinperson
orby
proxy,becausethey
setthe
stageforitsvery
term
s.Itisdifficultto
seethesamekind
ofenvironm
entthatw
ould
becon-
ducive
totheprod
uctio
nof
aworklik
etheEssaybeingalso
presentin
either
Mytilene
orMacedon
ia.Inparticular,w
ould
thesenseof
proxim
-ity
toAcademic
positions
wewitn
essin
theEssayhave
persisted
dur-
ingthoselon
gyearso
fTheoph
rastussclosea
ssociatio
nwith
onlyAristo-
tle,and
after
thedeathof
Speusip
pus()
andaw
ayfrom
Xenocrates?
Asforthefirstyear
after
thereturn
ofthetwoph
ilosoph
ersto
Athens
in,
bythat
timethey
hadbeen
working
together
forover
fourteen
years,ifno
tmore,andthekind
ofcriticald
iscussionof
Aristotlesear-
lierm
etaphysic
altheoriesthaton
efind
sintheEssaywou
ldhave
already
takenplacebetweenthem
;besides,b
ythat
timeAristotle
wou
ldhave
developedsomeo
fthe
laterm
etaphysic
alideas,andTh
eoph
rastus
wou
ldhave
know
nabou
tthem
.For
intheop
eningof
theEssayTh
eoph
ras-
tus,very
muchlik
eAristotlein
theearly
book
Alpha
oftheMetaphysics,
isstill
grapplingwith
thevery
nameof
thedisciplin
ein
which
heis
engaged,
which
hesim
plycalls
;
F:d718QK"I
J*-#Fec
17()
Of
PI
#S&1
9FIhQ8J:B?I]Y>F^
,Bij;21a: