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: