Theory and History of Ontology

by Raul Corazzon - e-mail: raul.corazzon[at]formalontology.it

For an overview see the Index of the Pages, the SITE MAP or the Alphabetical Index of the Philosophers: A-F - G-O - P-Z; You can also download this page as Ontology in PDF format

Table of Contemporary Ontologists Ontology. Table of Ontologists (click on the image to see the PDF file)

The Oblivion of Being After Aristotle: Theophrastus' Metaphysics

 

Index of the Section: Metaphysics or Ontology? The Debate about the Subject Matter of First Philosophy

 

INTRODUCTION: THE OBLIVION OF METAPHYSICS IN HELLENISTIC PHILOSOPHY

"It would not be quite accurate to claim that Aristotle's Metaphysics, like Hume's Treatise, "fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots." First, there was no press. Second, the Metaphysics would not have been published as a book had there been a press. And finally, the Metaphysics was not completely ignored by Aristotle's school. Still, if one peruses Fritz Wehrli's monumental Die Schule des Aristoteles and notes the few scattered and desultory references to ontological or theological topics, one cannot resist forming the impression that the Metaphysics is pretty largely an academic failure. Even Aristotle's formidable disciple and colleague Theophrastus, who himself actually composed a treatise on metaphysics, seems to write with a remarkably limited understanding of the work of his predecessor in this area. (1) Apart from a few references to book twelve, there is almost total silence regarding the central features of Aristotle's work as they are recognized today. There is nothing about the identification of first philosophy with wisdom and theology and a science of causes; nothing of the aporiai facing the construction of such a science; nothing of the doctrine of pros en equivocity or of the conclusion that being in the primary sense is separate form. Nor is there a word about the dialectical treatment of sensible substance in the central books of the Metaphysics, which has so exercised contemporary scholars. The list of the disappearing doctrines could easily he expanded and reconfirmed by considering other philosophers both inside and outside the Lyceum. We must not be tempted to account for this extraordinary state of affairs by supposing that Aristotle's successors regarded his metaphysical doctrines as too sublime for comment, for both Theophrastus and Strato, the first and second heads of the Lyceum after Aristotle, appear actually to have rejected the argument for the existence of an unmoved mover.' Strato's argument amounts to the claim that nature alone is sufficient to account for motion, a claim that must have been intended to recall Aristotle's own admission that if separate substance does not exist, then there is no special science of substance apart from physics (cf. Met. 6.1.1026a27-29). Since Aristotle adds that the putative science of separate substance is first philosophy and the science of being qua being, Strato's denial of the need for the hypothesis of an unmoved mover is nothing short of a rejection of the entire enterprise of the Metaphysics. And this from within the Peripatos! If we look beyond the Lyceum to the tradition of Aristotelian commentaries, beginning with Alexander of Aphrodisias, we do indeed find something more like reverence for the words of the founder, but hardly any awareness at all of the problematic and crucial connection between the specific theological arguments in the Metaphysics and the science of being qua being. Though the extant corpus of Aristotelian commentaries includes four works on the Metaphysics, there exists not a single commentary by one hand on the entire work as preserved and edited by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century B.C. Alexander's commentary ends at book five and is completed by an anonymous continuator; Themistius has a commentary, or more accurately a paraphrase, of book twelve alone; Syrianus comments on books three, four, thirteen, and fourteen; Asclepius halts his commentary at book seven. In the face of this modest harvest, one might well conceive the notion that the Metaphysics was doomed from the beginning to bear meager fruit. (3) The dominance of Stoicism throughout the Hellenistic period explains in part the near oblivion into which metaphysics in general and Aristotle's work in particular were cast. A central principle of Stoic theoretical philosophy is the refusal -- perhaps for methodological reasons as much as anything else -- to countenance the existence of immaterial entities. Accordingly, physics becomes Stoic first philosophy, and theology becomes a branch of physics (cf. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 2.42; cited hereafter as SVF). Within such a system there is little conceptual space for isolating being as a subject for investigation, and, especially, for raising Aristotelian aporiai regarding its nature. The evidence for this claim is to be found in the corpus of Stoic fragments, where a science of being qua being makes no appearance at all, not even as a dragon to be slain. It is as if it had never existed. (4) Considering that Stoics, and to a lesser extent Epicureans and Academic Skeptics, were the primary purveyors of theoretical philosophy throughout the Hellenistic period, it is hardly surprising that the doctrines of the Metaphysics simply lay dormant. (5)" pp. 3-5.

(1) Theophrastus did not of course title his work meta ta physika, but he does describe it as dealing with first principles (Theo., Met. 4a 1-2) and as distinct from physics (ibid., 2-4) and mathematics (ibid., 4b6-8). The first principles are apparently reducible to a unique first principle, i.e., god (ibid., 4615). As Giovanni Reale, "The Historical Importance of the Metaphysics of Theophrastus in Comparison with the Metaphysics of Aristotle," appendix to The Concept of First Philosophy and the Unity of the Metaphysics of Aristotle, trans. John Catan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1980), 364-91, shows, Theophrastus closely follows Metaphysics 12 in many respects. But apart from these and some less convincing parallels from Metaphysics 2, there is little awareness shown by Theophrastus of any connection between theology and a science of being qua being.

(2) For Theophrastus's criticism, see his Metaphysics 563-10, and for Strato, see the testimony contained in Cicero, Academica 2.38.

(3) See Gerard Verbeke's "Aristotle's Metaphysics Viewed by the Ancient Greek Commentators," in D. J. O'Meara, ed., Studies in Aristotle (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1981 114ff., for a useful summary of some of the basic interpretations in the commentators. Verbeke concludes that there is a consistent interpretation among the commentaries that may be aptly termed "Neoplatonic." We should distinguish, however, a Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle from a Neoplatonic refutation of Aristotle, as is to be found in Plotinus.

(4) Zeno, Chrysippus, and Antipater are all reported to have written books titled Perí Ousías. Of course, these Stoics all identify ousía with matter. The few scattered references to tò on, which identify it with body and make it a species of the genus tò ti, betray little more than a lingering memory of some Aristotelian terminology stripped of its argumentative context. The Stoic position was perhaps taken to follow immediately from the principle that immaterial entities cannot exist; hence, argument indicating the contrary can be safely ignored. F. H. Sandbach, Aristotle and the Stoics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), has argued the revisionary case that, for the Stoics, Aristotle was not rejected but largely unknown. But the lack of hard evidence, rightly insisted upon by Sandbach, is also explicable by the hypothesis that Aristotelian arguments, in metaphysics at least, were rendered irrelevant on the above principle.

(5) Cf. Fritz Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles: Text and Kommentar (Basel/Stuttgart: Benno Schwabe & Co., 1959), 10:95-128, who suggests in a Ruckblick over the material he has collected that the disintegration of the Peripatetic school was owing to its undogmatic and aporetic character as compared to its Academic, Epicurean, and Stoic rivals. He also suggests that conflict in doctrine between the Metaphysics and the early dialogues of Aristotle might account for diffidence or confusion on the part of his disciples: "der Zerfall der Schule hatte seine tiefste Ursache im Werke des Meisters selbst" (ibid., 96). Undoubtedly, there is much in what Wehrli has to say. One may also add the instability of the Peripatetic foundation owing to political reasons.

From: Lloyd P. Gerson - Plotinus and the rejection of Aristotelian Metaphysics - in: Lawrence P. Schrenk (ed.) - Aristotle in Late Antiquity - Washington, Chatolic University Press, 1994, pp. 3-21 

 

SUMMARY OF THE METAPHYSICS, OR STUDY OF FIRST THINGS

"Chapter I. The nature of the relation between the first principles and sensible things; II. Problems about the impulse of sensible things towards the first principle; III. The importance of deducing the observed facts from the first principles; IV. Are the first principles definite or indefinite?; V. The supposed immobility of the first principles; VI. Matter and form; VII: Good and evil; VIII: The multiplicity of being and of knowledge; IX; The limits of teleological explanation."

 

From: Theophrastus Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1929. With translation, commentary and introduction by William David Ross and Francis Howard Fobes. Reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1967.

 

 

“What are first things? They are different from the world of nature, and are the objects of reason, not sense. (Here he adopts Aristotle's standard distinction, derived from Plato.) But how are these two related, and what are the objects of reason? They must either be in mathematical objects, or be something prior to these. If the latter, how many are they? He continues in an Aristotelian vein to say that they/it are the cause of motion, but themselves unmoved. They are objects of desire, and cause the rotation of the heavens. But if the prime mover is one, why do heavenly bodies move differently? If there are more than one, how is their influence harmonized? And why does love of the unmoved cause an imitation which is movement? After an interlude about the Platonists, he continues: anyhow the heavenly bodies, having desire, must also have soul, and the movement of soul, which is thought, is better than rotary movement. And what about the inferior parts of nature? And is rotation essential to the existence of heavenly bodies?

He then criticizes Plato, and some of his followers, including Speusippus (died 339 BO, for not carrying through their accounts to the end, but considers a possible reply, that metaphysics is only concerned with first principles. So are first principles definite, or indefinite, in the sense of shapeless and merely potential? At this point it is difficult to be sure whether he is talking of first things in the sense in which the hot, the cold, the wet, and the dry may be seen as first things, or about the fundamental principles (laws) which govern what exists. So when he asks if they are moving or motionless, it could be that the former are in motion but the latter, being abstract, are motionless. In any case, the universe is complex.

Among particular first things are form and matter, one of Aristotle's basic dichotomies.

What is the status of matter? This problem was developed in his De Anima, in which he pointed out the similarities between prime matter and potential intellect, both being merely potential, and probably explained their differences in terms of how each is related to forms. Other pairs then occupy him, especially good and evil -- Why is there so much evil in the world? -- and he mentions the void as the contrary of being. But there are different types of being, and knowledge is of similarity in difference at various levels. (Here again he adopts Aristotle's distinctions.) There are different methods of knowledge for different subject.

One must stop somewhere in searching for causes. It is often difficult to assign final causes, as with floods, male breasts, the shapes of inanimate objects, and many other things. Perhaps these result automatically from the rotation of the heavens. Alternatively there is a limit to purposiveness, and the desire for what is good.

Though wide ranging, this is largely a criticism of many of the assumptions on which Aristotle's system is based, and some people believe that it was so devastating that interest in metaphysics ceased in the Peripatos. Theophrastus's successor, Strato (died 269 BC), concentrated on natural science.”

 

From: Pamela M. Huby - Theophrastus - in: Hans Burkhardt & Barry Smith (eds.) - Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology - Philosophia Verlag GMBH - Munchen 1991 - vol. II p. 894

 

 

THE METAPHYSICS BY THEOPHRASTUS

"Theophrastus recognized the need to justify the assumption that natural science involves principles, causes, and elements. He also warned against inquiring into the cause of everything. Nevertheless, his physics is in large measure an attempt to trace observed phenomena back to principles of order and determination. He believed in the divinity of the heavens and the eternity of the universe and held that the heavenly bodies possess regularity in the highest degree. However, he denied a clean break between the heavenly and sublunary spheres, holding that the universe is a single system in which the same physical laws apply to all its parts. Theophrastus considered the possibility that the sun might be a form of fire, but the discussion is aporetic and not proof that Theophrastus rejected Aristotle's fifth element, aether, as Strato did. Theophrastus does, however, appear to depart from Aristotle by analyzing place in terms of arrangement and position with reference to the whole universe.

Academic discussion and Aristotle's postulation of an unmoved mover form the background to Theophrastus's treatise on metaphysics. Many of the views discussed are considered plausible, but often we do not know what Theophrastus accepted as part of his own theory. It is probable that Theophrastus rejected Aristotle's unmoved mover and laid greater emphasis on the limits of teleological explanation. Like both Plato and Aristotle, he held that the study of first principles is more definite and ordered than the study of nature. Intelligible and physical entities are related as prior and posterior, but further specification of the relationship is not clearly provided. Most likely Theophrastus posited an unbroken causal series, for he requires continual explanation of all phenomena."

 

From: Theophrastus by William W. Fortenbaugh and Josip Talanga - in: Donald J. Zeyl (ed.) - Encyclopedia of Classical Philosophy - London, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, p. 553

 

 

“The historical importance of this brief treatise on first philosophy by Theophrastus has not escaped some scholars who have been concerned with it. It is the most significant metaphysical text that we possess between the time of Aristotle and the flowering of the new philosophical schools of the Hellenistic period. The treatise has two different dimensions, one refers to Aristotle, the other, in a certain way, refers to Stoicism. A careful examination of the precise links which one aspect has to the other as well as in comparison with Aristotle and Stoicism has come only recently and is susceptible of further precisions as well as corrections and modifications.

The historical relations existing between the treatise of Theophrastus and Aristotle's Metaphysics has been recently studied by Jaeger, in connection with his well-known thesis on the genesis and development of Aristotle's metaphysical doctrine, as well as on the basis of his special interpretation of the development of theology and the doctrine of the immobile Mover.(1)

The other dimension of the treatise, which refers to Stoicism, has been investigated chiefly by Grumach.(2)

We intend to limit ourselves to a reexamination of the first point. To review the second point, it would be necessary to reexamine many problems concerning Stoicism, which would take us outside the limits of our subject.”

 

(1) Werner Jaeger - Aristotle. Fundamentals of the history of his development - Translated by Richard Robinson - Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1948 - pp. 349, 354-357.

(2) Ernst Grumach - Physis und Agathon in der alten Stoa - Berlin, Weidmann, 1932

From: Giovanni Reale - The concept of First Philosophy and the unity of the Metaphysics of Aristotle - Albany, State University of New York Press, 1980, Appendix A. The historical importance of the Metaphysics of Theophrastus in comparison with the Metaphysics of Aristotle - pp. 364 (notes omitted).

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THEOPHRASTUS ERESUS

Abbreviations:

 

FR = Fragments

FHS&G = Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. et al. Leiden: Brill 1992 (two volumes)

RUSCH = Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities

 

ANCIENT EDITIONS OF THE COLLECTED WORKS BY THEOPHRASTUS

  1. Theophrasti Opera. Basileae: 1541.
    Edited with a preface by Hieronymus Gemusaeus and Joachim Camerarius (the first printed edition of Theophrastus' works).

     

  2. Theophrasti Opera pleraque graeca et latina. Hanoveri: 1605.
    Ex libris Johannes Vincenti Pinelli

     

  3. Theophrasti Eresii quae supersunt opera et excerpta librorum quatuor tomis comprehensa. Lipsiae: 1818.
    Edited by Gottob Schneider (1818-1821)

     

  4. Theophrasti Eresii Opera quae supersunt omnia. Lipsiae: 1854.
    Edited by Friedrich Wimmer (3 volumes, 1854-1862); reprint: Frankfurt am Main, Minerva, 1964.

     

  5. Theophrasti De prima philosophia libellus. Bonn: C. Georg 1890.
    Edited by Hermann Usener

 

MODERN EDITIONS OF THEOPHRASTUS' PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

  1. Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence. I. Life, writings, various reports, logic, physics, metaphysics, theology, mathematics. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. et al. Leiden: Brill 1992.
    Contents: Preface VII-VIII; Introduction 1; Abbreviations 15; Texts. Life (FR 1-36) 20; Writings (FR 37-55) 90; Various reports (FR 56-67) 104; Logic (FR 68-136) 114; Physics (FR 137-245) 276; Metaphysics (FR 246-250) 436; Theology (FR 251-263) 442; Mathematics (FR 264) 456; Appendix Nos. 1-4 460.

    "These two volumes represent the first fruits of an international project to produce a new collection - text, translation and commentary - of the fragments and testimonia relating to Theophrastus (c. 370-288/5 B.C.), Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Lyceum. The need for a new collection was apparent: the standard collection, by Wimmer, is already 120 years old, whereas we now have far better texts of many of the ancient authors in which fragments and testimonia of Theophrastus occur. Whilst classicists have devoted the past hundred years to bringing into the light the work of the major post-Aristotelian schools, the contribution of Theophrastus has remained obscure. The second printing contains corrections to the first.
    This first stage of the project presents the texts, critical apparatus and English translation of the fragments and testimonia. It contains a long methodological introduction, an index of Theophrastean texts and concordances with other collections (Scheider, Wimmer and the several recent partial editions).
    The second stage of the project, which Brill will also publish, will consist of 9 commentary volumes, planned at present as follows:
    1. Life, Writings, various reports (M. Sollenberger, Mt. St. Mary's College)
    2. Logic (P.M. Huby, Liverpool University)
    3. Physics (R.W. Sharples, University College London)
    4. Metaphysics, Theology, Mathematics, Psychology (P.M. Huby, Liverpool University)
    5. Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany (R.W. Sharples, University of London)
    6. Ethics, Religion (W.W. Fortenbaugh, Rutgers University)
    7. Politics (J. Mirhady)
    8. Rhetoric, Poetics (W.W. Fortenbaugh, Rutgers University)
    9. Music, Miscellaneous Items and Index of proper names, subject index, selective index of Greek, Latin and Arabic terms (several authors/editors).
    Most of the nine commentary volumes will include significant discussion of Arabic texts, with contributions by Dimitri Gutas (Yale University) and Hans Daiber (Free University of Amsterdam).

     

  2. Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence. II. Psychology, human physiology, living creatures, botany, ethics, religion, politics, rhetoric and poetics, music, miscellanea. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. et al. Leiden: Brill 1992.
    Contents: Texts. Psychology (FR 264-327) 2; Human physiology (FR 328-349) 106; Living creatures (FR 350-383) 134; Botany (FR 384-435) 188; Ethics (FR 436-579) 254; Religion (FR 580-588) 400; Politics (FR 589-665) 438; Rhetoric and Poetics (FR 666-713) 508; Music (FR 714-726) 560; Miscellneous items (FR 727-741) 584; Appendix Nos. 5-9 600; Concordances 619; Index of Theophrastean texts 629

     

  3. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary volume 2: Logic. Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence. Edited by Huby Pamela. Leiden: Brill 2007.
    "This volume contains commentary on the sections concerned with logic (texts 68-136) of the collection of texts published in 1992 (Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Lift, Writings, Thought and Influence, edited and translated by William W. Fortenbaugh, Pamela M. Huby, Robert W. Sharples (Greek and Latin) and Dimitri Gutas (Arabic) and five others, 2 vols., Leiden: Brill, 1992). It was comparatively easy to isolate those texts connected with logic, though in a few cases there was uncertainty about whether an item was to be assigned to rhetoric rather than logic. There was also little difficulty with problems of texts where the attribution to Theophrastus is doubtful.
    The texts on which we are commenting are nearly all ones that contain the name of Theophrastus, along with a few in which only "the colleagues of Aristotle" are mentioned in a context where it is clear that Theophrastus is intended, usually with Eudemus. They are evidence for works now lost, even in translation. We have taken account, either by actual quotation or by giving references in the upper apparatus, of all such passages up to the cut-off date of 1450. Two items printed in the appendix are without attribution, and are included only as possibly by Theophrastus. To facilitate access to contexts we have added references to English translations of some passages quoted or referred to, and have given short accounts of most of the items mentioned in the upper apparatus.
    Within the commentary in some cases several items are grouped together for a general discussion, but then individual items are also treated separately. Lists of relevant literature are given either under the heading of a group or with individual items. We have transliterated short items of Greek, but quoted longer ones in the original script.
    (...)
    It was only after the bulk of this work had been written that I became aware of the important study of De Rijk, entitled Aristotle Semantics and Ontology, which in fact contains a great deal of valuable work on Aristotle's logic. I have however been able to incorporate many references to it, either in the text or in footnotes." (from the Preface)

     

  4. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary Volume 3.1: Sources on physics (Texts 137-223). Edited by Sharples Robert W. Leiden: Brill 1998.
    This volume contains commentary to the section concerned with physics (texts 137-223) of the collection of texts relating to Theophrastus compiled and edited under the leadership of W.W. Fortenbaugh and published in 1992 (Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence). The collection of texts was arranged by subject matter, rather than by the known or conjectured relation of testimonia to particular Theophrastean works (cf. the Introduction to the collection of texts, vol.1 pp. 7-8), and the arrangement of topics was broadly that familiar from the ordering of Aristotle's writings in Bekker's edition. The subject matter of the present commentary might thus be loosely described as the Theophrastean counterpart to the Baker pages of Aristotle 184-390 (Physics, On Heaven, On Coming-to-Be and Passing Away and Meteorology). Commentary by Han Baltussen on the texts relating to physical doxography (224-245) will appear in a separate volume, 8.2, along with that by Pamela Huby on texts on metaphysics, theology and mathematics (246-264).
    It should be emphasised at the outset that our collection of texts is confined, with a very few exceptions, to those passages where Theophrastus is actually named, and that it is explicitly concerned with material that does not survive in Theophrastean works transmitted in MSS. We are concerned, in other words, with reports of Theophrastus' views -- sometimes quotations, but more often paraphrases -- in other authors." (from the Preface)

     

  5. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary Volume 4: Psychology (Texts 265-327). Edited by Huby Pamela. Leiden: Brill 1999.
    "This will eventually be the fourth of nine volumes of commentary by various authors, each relating to a part of the collection of texts relating to Theophrastus compiled and edited under the leadership of W.W.Fortenbaugh and published in 1992 (Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence). This volume covers texts 265-327, which relate to psychology and epistemology.
    This commentary is designed to be used in conjunction with the volume of texts and translations; that includes both an apparatus of parallels for each text and an apparatus of textual variations and emendations. In the commentary isolated words or phrases of Greek have been given in transliteration, with longer passages being given in Greek script. The titles of ancient works have generally been given in the same English versions as used in the text and translation volume.
    The procedure adopted in writing the commentary varies according to the nature of the passage involved. At the start of each passage there is usually a short list of pieces of modem literature; for references to such works the reader should consult first that list and then the general bibliography at the end of this volume." (from the Preface)

     

  6. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary Volume 5: Sources on biology (human physiology, living creatures, botany: Texts 328-435). Edited by Sharples Robert W. Leiden: Brill 1994.
    "This is the first to appear of a projected nine volumes of commentary by various authors, each relating to a different part of the collection of texts relating to Theophrastus compiled and edited under the leadership of W.W. Fortenbaugh and published in 1992 (Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and lnfluence). The present volume of commentary, no. 5 in the eventual series, cover texts 328-435 in the second volume of that collection, relating to human physiology, zoology and botany. The collection of texts was arranged by subject matter rather than by the known or conjectured relation of testimonia to particular Theophrastean works (cf. the Introduction to the collection of texts, vol. 1 pp. 7-8), and the arrangement of topics was broadly that familiar from the ordering of Aristotle's writings in Bekker's edition. The subject matter of the present commentary might thus be loosely described as the Theophrastean counterpart to the Bekker pages of Aristotle 436-789 (i.e. starting with the Parva Naturalia; Theophrastus' writings on general psychology will be dealt with in volume 4 of the commentary).
    It should be emphasised at the outset that our collection of texts is confined, with a very few exceptions, to those passages where Theophrastus is actually named, and that it is explicitly concerned with material that does not survive in Theophrastean works transmitted in MSS. We are concerned, in other words, with reports of Theophrastus' views, sometimes quotations but more often paraphrases, in other authors."

     

  7. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary Volume 8: Sources on rhetoric and poetics (Texts 666-713). Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. Leiden: Brill 2005.
    "The present volume (...) concerns the rhetorical and poetic fragments that are found in the second of the two text-translation volumes.
    The central sections of the commentary, i.e., III and IV, are ordered in accordance with the material presented in the second text-translation volume. Section III covers the twenty-four titles that have their primary listing in the section on the "Titles of Books." That section carries the number 666. It also includes discussion of nine titles that have their primary listing elsewhere (under logic, mathematics, physics, ethics, religion and miscellaneous items) but for one reason or another have or might be thought to have a connection with rhetoric and poetics. Each of these related titles is referred to in 666 and appears in this commentary in the same position in which it is found in 666. For example, the mathematical title In Reply to Aeschylus (137 no. 42) appears both in the source volume and in this commentary after the second work On the An of Poetry (666 no. 21) and before On Comedy (666 no. 22).
    Section IV on "The Texts" is also ordered in accordance with the second text-translation volume: i.e., the discussion of texts 667-713 proceeds in numerical order. There are, however, occasional interruptions, ten in all, when texts whose primary listing occurs elsewhere (under life, logic and ethics, among the miscellaneous items and in the appendix to the second text-translation volume) are discussed. In each case, the text is referred to in the second text-translation volume within the section on rhetoric and poetics, and discussion occurs in accordance with the position of the reference. For example, a logical text from Alexander of Aphrodisias (135) is referred to after one from Cicero (672) and before one from the codex Parisinus Graecus 3032 (673A), and discussion of the text occupies a similar position in this commentary.
    I have created a separate section on the ancient sources - Demetrius Rhetor, Philodemus, Cicero, etc. - and placed it at the beginning of the commentary proper, i.e., as Section II. An alternative would have been to reserve discussion on any given source until a text taken from that source is commented upon. Were that procedure adopted, Cicero qua source would be discussed at the very outset, for the first text among the rhetorical and poetic texts is taken from Cicero (667). In contrast, discussion of Philodemus, Cicero's contemporary, would occur much later (689A). "

     

  8. Theophrastus Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1929.
    With translation, commentary and introduction by William David Ross and Francis Howard Fobes.
    Reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1967.
    Contents: Preface VIII; Introduction IX; Sigla XXXIII; Text and translation 2; Commentary 41; Index verborum 77; Index to the Introductiona and Commentary 84-87.
    "The text as here given, the English translation, the greater part of the Introduction, and all the Commentary are the work of Mr. Ross; for that part of the Introduction which deals with the MSS., for the apparatus criticus, and for the Indexes Mr. Fobes is responsible." (from the Preface)

    "All the Greek manuscripts of this work assign it to Theophrastus. A scholion at the end adds that it was unknown to Hermippus (c. 200 B.C.) and to Andronicus (c. 85 B.C.) and does not occur in their lists of Theophrastus' writings, but that Nicolaus (i.e. Nicolaus of Damascus) ascribed it to Theophrastus. Thus the tradition that Theophrastus was its author goes back to about 25 B.C. (...)
    The title ta meta ta phusika must have been imposed on the work at some time after Andronicus' edition of Aristotle's works, from which the phrase took its origin; and may have been imposed by Nicolaus, who was the first, so far as we know, to refer to Aristotle's Metaphysics by that name. (..:)
    The essay is printed in the editio princeps of Aristotle (Aldus, 1498); in the edition of Theophrastus published at Basel in 1541 by Hieronymus Gemusaeus or Oporinus (a reprint of the Aldine), and in a reprint of this (bearing the same date) in which Priscian's Metaphrasis is added; in the Camotian Aristotle (Venice, 1552), and in the Sylburg Aristotle (Frankfurt, 1585). It is omitted in the edition of Theophrastus' shorter works by H. Stephanus (Paris, 1557), in the editions of Theophrastus by Furlanus and Turnebus (Hanover, 1605), by Daniel Heinsius (Leyden, 1613), and by J. G. Schneider (Leipzig, 1818-21),but was printed by Brandis (1) with Aristotle's Metaphysics (Berlin, 1823), and in Wimmer's two editions of Theophrastus (Leipzig, 1862, and Paris, 1866), and finally has been edited separately by H. Usener (Bonn, 1890). It is the subject of a Greek commentary by Camotius (Venice, 1551)." (from the Introduction)

    (1) Who summarizes and discusses its contents in his Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch-Römischen Philosophie (1835-1866) [to be reprinted by Georg Olms, Hildesheim, in 2010]

     

  9. Metaphysics. Leiden: Brill 1993.
    With an introduction, translation and commentary by Marlein van Raalte.
    Contents: Preface XI; Abbreviations XV; Introduction 1; Text and translation 35; Commentary 67; Chapter One (4 a 2 - 5 a 13) 69; Chapter Two (4 a 14 - 6 a 15) 164; Chapter Three (6 a 15 - 6 b 22) 250; Chapter Four (6 b 23 - 7 b 8) 285; Chapter Five (7 b 9 - 8 a 7) 330; Chapter Six (8 a 8 - 8 a 20) 362; Chapter Seven (8 a 21 - 8 b 9) 277; Chapter Eight (8 b 10 - 10 a 21) 393; Chapter Nine (10 a 22 - 12 a 2) 485; References and author index 588; Index of passages cited 598; Index of Theophrastus Metaphysics 628; General Index: English 659; Greek 668-657.

    "The history of this book is like that of the best of relationships in that it was started lightheartedly and lasted much longer than foreseen.
    Initially serving mainly as a counterbalance to the study of Greek stichic verse, the project was meant to be completed in 1983-1985, during which years the Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research granted me a post-graduate scholarship for that purpose. In the course of time it became increasingly clear that Theophrastus' argument, in spite of the deceptive familiarity of its idiom, defies any easy access to a consistent interpretation-even allowing for its obviously dialectical nature. This made the commentary grow to its present size, my extensively quoting of parallel passages testifying to the experience that without a careful study both of the idiom and of the kind of reasoning involved the purport of the argument remains elusive.
    The opportunity offered by Project Theophrastus to present a paper at its 1985 conference at the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London triggered a choice of focus which is at the base of the present interpretation of the treatise. As if infected by Theophrastus' way of proceeding I have made an attempt to expose each and every question that is posed by the text, and to detect the reasons for preferring one interpretation rather than another-my prevailing criterion being the internal consistency of the argument.
    A side-effect of the somewhat unusual set-up of this book might be that it could be used as a kind of sourcebook for Peripatetic idiom; in order to help those who may want to explore this way of making a virtue out of necessity full indices have been provided.
    During all these years I had the opportunity to profit from the wisdom and erudition, and certainly did profit front the assistance and support of many people.
    First of all I have to acknowledge my indebtedness to the authors of the forthcoming Budé-cdition of the Metaphysics, and especially to Professor Andre Laks for generously sending me a copy of their completed manuscript in 1990 (and of a revised version of it in 1992), and for allowing me to make use of their apparatus criticus and to incorporate references to their interpretation of the text; in this way we have tried to minimize the drawbacks of our simultaneously working on a treatise which had been waiting for attention for so long. It will he clear that the present work heavily relies on Laks & Most's study especially where the manuscript tradition is concerned." (from the Preface)

     

  10. La Métaphysique. Paris: Vrin 1948.
    Traduction et notes par Jules Tricot

     

  11. Métaphysique. Paris: Belles Lettres 1993.
    Table des matières: Avant-propos VII; Notice IX ; I. La question du titre et du caractère fragmentaire de l'opuscule IX; II. Caractères généraux de l'opuscule XVIII; III. Sommaire de l'argument de l'opuscule XXVII; IV: La transmission de l'opuscule XL; Bibliographie LXXXI; Sigla LXXXIX-XC; Texte et traduction 1; Notes complémentaires 25; Index nominum 91-101.

    Texte édité, traduit et annoté par André Laks et Glenn W. Most avec la collaboration de Charles Larmore et Enno Rudolph et pour la traduction arabe de Michel Crubellier.
    "Le travail que nous présentons ici a débuté, en décembre 1983, par un séminaire sur la Métaphysique de Théophraste réunissant André Laks (Centre de recherche philologique de l'Université Charles de Gaulle-Lille III/Princeton University, Grec), Charles Larmore (Columbia University, Philosophie), Glenn W. Most (Université de Heidelberg, Philologie classique), Enno Rudolph (Forschungsslâtte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft et Université de Heidelberg, Théologie). Pendant quatre ans, ce séminaire s'est réuni à intervalles variés, à Heidelberg, Florence ou Paris, pour approfondir le travail d'interprétation. En 1987, Michel Crubellier (Centre de recherche philologique) s'est adjoint au groupe de travail, quand nous nous sommes rendu compte de l'importance de la version arabe conservée à la bibliothèque de Téhéran. Les discussions intensives qui se sont prolongées pendant celte période fournissent la base de ce travail. Si deux auteurs signent finalement le livre, c'est qu'ils se sont chargés de l'établissement du texte grec et de la rédaction de cette édition. G. W. Most a relu les manuscrits grecs et latins et établi le texte avec l'apparat. Il a préparé les parties de l'introduction relatives à l'histoire de la transmission du texte (I et IV), à l'exception de la partie arabe, due à M. Crubellier (qui a aussi collationné les manuscrits arabes), et élaboré un premier état du sommaire (III). Une première version de la traduction, des notes, et de la section II de l'Introduction, rédigée par A. Laks (qui a également révisé l'Index des mots figurant dans l'édition Ross-Fobes), a été soumise à la critique des membres du séminaire. La mise en forme finale de l'ensemble, qui résulte du travail commun des signataires, a tiré profit des remarques de tous." (Extrait de l'Avant-propos)
    (...)
    (*) En janvier 1993, Marlein van Raalte a mis à notre disposition le manuscrit du volumineux commentaire de l'opuscule qu'elle publie chez Brill, et qui se réfère au manuscrit de la présente édition. Nous n'avons pu comparer et utiliser les résultats obtenus que dans un cas (cf. p. 69, n. 41). Elle n'a pu, de son côté, tenir compte des dernières modifications apportées à notre propre travail (cf. e.g. notre texte en 11a19-20, notre interprétation de 10b25 ou notre note 37, p. 57).

     

  12. Traduzione integrale con commento de "la Metafisica" di Teofrasto. In Teofrasto e la sua aporetica metafisica. Brescia: La Scuola 1964. pp. 165-207
    English translation by John Catan of Reale's translation of Theophrastus' Metaphysics in: G. Reale - The concept of first philosophy and the unity of the Metaphysics of Aristotle - Albany, Sate University of New York Press, 1980, pp. 392-423

     

  13. La Metafisica. Milano: La vita Felice 1994.
    Testo greco a fronte, introduzione, traduzione e note a cura di Silvia Romani

     

  14. Die Metaphysik Theophrasts. Edition, Kommentar, Interpretation. Edited by Henrich Jörn. München: K. G. Saur 2000.
    "Die Metaphysik Theophrasts is the first German translation of the short (fragmentary?) work by Aristotle's pupil, Theophrastus. It is a strange destiny for the scholars of classical German philology: the main edition of the original - Metaphysica, herausgegeben von Hermann Usener, Bonn 1890 - is due to their care, but only now they arrive at a translation in modern language, after W.D. Ross and F.H. Fobes (Oxford 1929, in English); J. Tricot (Paris 1948, in French); G. Reale (Brescia 1964, in Italian); A. Laks and G.W. Most (Paris 1993, in French); M. van Raalte (Leiden-New York-Köln, 1993, in English); S. Romani (Milan, 1994, in Italian).

    Certainly H. uses the previous works with intelligence, particularly, Laks-Most and Van Raalte's critical enquiry and commentaries, but his purpose is to be exhaustive in every point of view: philological, historical-philosophical, theoretical-interpretative. The introduction (I) which defines the status quaestionis of research on this work of Theophrastus, about the fixing of the text, about its character and structure, it is followed by (II) the German translation with a critically revised Greek text (III) grammatical-syntactical comment to every single chapter, a (IV) precise philosophical commentary that seeks to define both the method and the theory of Theophrastus' knowledge (pp. 164-223), and also his Weltanschauung (pp. 223-287). Then we find (V) an appendix concerning fragments and testimonies of ancient authors that are extrapolated from the text of Metaphysics. Finally there is a bibliography and an analytical index of Greek terms."

    From the Review by Stefano Maso in: Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2001, November 11.

     

  15. Die Logischen Fragmente des Theophrast. Edited by Graeser Andreas. Berlin: de Gruyter 1973.

     

  16. Testimonianze e frammenti. In La logica di Teofrasto. Studio critico e raccolta dei frammenti e delle testimonianze. Bologna: Il Mulino 1977. pp. 193-223
    A cura di Luciana Repici (testi greci e latini di 77 frammenti).

     

  17. Quellen zur Ethik Theophrasts. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner 1984.

     

Dimitri Gutas has finished his Greek-Latin-Arabic edition of Theophrastus’ Metaphysics; the volume will be published by Brill in 2009.

 

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THEOPHRASTUS' PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

For the logical works see: Peripatetic Logic: The Work of Eudemus of Rhodes and Theophrastus

 

  1. Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985.

     

  2. Theophrastean studies. On natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988.
    RUSCH Vol. 3.
    "The majority of the papers in this volume were originally presented at a conference held at the Institute of Classical Studies in the University of London from the 25th to the 27th of June, 1985."

     

  3. Theophrastus. His psychological. doxographical, and scientific writings. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Gutas Dimitri. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1992.
    RUSCH Vol. 5.
    "The contents includes two new critical editions: Theophrastus' Meteorology and his work On Fish. Both editions are accompanied by an English translation and commentary. Also included in the volume are discussions of Theophrastus' work On Sense Perception, his Physical Doctrines and the spurious treatise On Signs. Finally there are articles on Theophrastus' notion of place, of intellect and of animal intelligence."

     

  4. Theophrastus. Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998.
    RUSCH Vol. 8

     

  5. On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Wöhrle Georg. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002.
    Akten der 3. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung von 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier

     

  6. Alon Ilai, "The Arabic version of Theophrastus' Metaphysica," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6: 163-217 (1985).

     

  7. Anton John P., "The concept of causality in Theophrastus' Metaphysics," Journal of Neoplatonic Studies 7: 1-31 (1998).

     

  8. Baltussen Han. Peripatetic dialectic in the De Sensibus in Theophrastus. In Theophrastus. His psychological. doxographical, and scientific writings. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Gutas Dimitri. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1992. pp. 1-19
    "The nature and purpose of the De sensibus have remained unstudied ever since the text was printed as a fragment of the lost (so-called) Physikon doxai in Hermann Diels's Doxographi graeci (1879). In this paper its general structure and argument are studied from a Peripatetic point of view by using recent insights in Aristotle's use of dialectic. This procedure provides tools for testing reputable views' (endoxa), which may then serve as a starting-point for a systematic exposition. It is shown that Theophrastus also makes use of dialectical moves to examine the theories on perception."

     

  9. Baltussen Han. Theophrastus against the Presocratics and Plato. Peripatetic dialectic in the De sensibus. Leiden: Brill 2000.

     

  10. Baltussen Han. Theophrastean echoes? The De Sensibus in the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition. In On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Wöhrle Georg. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002. pp. 39-58

     

  11. Barbotin Edmond. La théorie aristotélicienne de l'intellect d'aprés Théophraste. Louvain: Publications de l'Université de Louvain 1954.

     

  12. Battegazzore Antonio, "La posizione di Teofrasto tra metafisica e fisica," Epistemologia 12: 49-72 (1989).
    "L'interprétation moderne fait apparaître de plus en plus clairement les divergences de Théophraste par rapport à Aristote. Sa critique est avant tout dirigée contre ce qui, dans Aristote, porte la marque de l'esprit platonicien, et en particulier contre la doctrine du moteur immobile. Homme de science, aveugle à l'esprit ontologique, Théophraste est rétif à tout système abstrait et global et incapable d'admettre l'idée d'une science au-dessus de toutes les autres sciences. Il représente le triomphe du pragmatisme et de l'empirisme et inaugure la séparation entre philosophie et science. Cette optique caractérise aussi sa recherche physique."

     

  13. Cronin Patrick. The authorship and sources of the Peri Semeion ascribed to Theophrastus. In Theophrastus. His psychological. doxographical, and scientific writings. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Gutas Dimitri. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1992. pp. 307-345
    "The purpose of this paper is to establish through an analysis of the language of the text and the arrangement of its contents whether or not the Peri Semeion is a genuine work of Theophrastus. The author concludes that it is the work of an anonymous Peripatetic, probably a pupil of Theophrastus, who had recourse to (a) two written sources, (b) oral weather lore, and (c) his own experience, and that it was probably composed c. 300 BC."

     

  14. Crubellier Michel, "La version arabe de la Métaphysique de Théophraste et l'établissement du texte grec," Revue d'Histoire des Texts 22: 19-45 (1992).
    "Traduction en francais, sur la base d'une nouvelle lecture des manuscripts conservés, de la version réalisée par Ishaq ibn Hunain (IX/X s.). Témoin d'un état du texte grec antérieur à celui que nous fait connaître la tradition directe, cette version offre un grand intérêt pour la reconstitution de l'original."

     

  15. Daiber Hans. A survey of Theophrastean texts and ideas in Arabic: some new material. In Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985. pp. 103-114

     

  16. Devereux Daniel. The relations between Teophrastus' Metaphysics and Aristotle's Metaphysics Lambda. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 167-188
    "In Theophrastus's treatise, Metaphysics, we find a critique of Aristotle's metaphysical theories, but the critique strangely relies exclusively on book Lambda for the views it addresses. This fact poses a problem for both Jaeger's hypothesis that Lambda is early (why, then, would Theophrastus treat it as "the" authoritative source for Aristotle's views?), and the unitarian hypothesis that it is late (why is there "no" discussion of the views of the central books?). In the paper I try to show, on the basis of a comparison of the conception of metaphysics in book Lambda and the central books, that Lambda was written earlier; I then offer some evidence for the view that Theophrastus' critique was written during Aristotle's lifetime, before the central books of his Metaphysics were written. "

     

  17. Dillon John. Theophrastus' critique of the Old Academy in the Metaphysics. In On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Wöhrle Georg. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002. pp. 175-187

     

  18. Ellis John. The aporematic character of Theophrastus' "Metaphysics". In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 216-223

     

  19. Festugière André-Jean, "Le sens des apories métaphysiques de Théophraste," Revue Néoscolastique de Philosophie: 40-49 (1931).
    Réimprimé dans: A.-J. Festugière - Études de philosophie grecque - Paris, Vrin, 1971, pp. 357-366

     

  20. Fortenbaugh William W. Theophrastean studies. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag 2003.
    Contains 22 articles published between 1975 and 2000

     

  21. Frede Dorothea, "Theophrasts Kritik am unbewegten Beweger des Aristoteles," Phronesis 26: 65-79 (1971).

     

  22. Gaiser Konrad. Theophrast in Assos. Zur Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaft zwischen Akademie und Peripatos. Heidelberg: C. Winter 1985.

     

  23. Gigon Olof. The Peripatos in Cicero's De finibus. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 259-271

     

  24. Gigon Olof. Theophrast in Cicero's De finibus. In Cicero's knowledge of the Peripatos. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Steinmetz Peter. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1989. pp. 159-185

     

  25. Glucker John. Theoprastus, the Academy, and the Athenian philosophical atmosphere. In Theophrastus.Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998. pp. 299-316

     

  26. Gottschalk Hans B. Prolegomena to an edition of Theophrastus' fragments. In Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung, Paul Moraux gewidmet, I: Aristoteles und seine Schule. Edited by Wiesner Jürgen. Berlin: de Gruyter 1985. pp. 543-556

     

  27. Gottschalk Hans B. Theophrastus and the Peripatos. In Theophrastus.Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998. pp. 281-298

     

  28. Görler Woldemar. Thophrastus, the Academy, Antiochus and Cicero: a response (to John Glucker) and an appendix. In Theophrastus.Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998. pp. 319-329

     

  29. Gutas Dimitri. The life, works and sayings of Theophrastus in the Arabic tradition. In Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985. pp. 63-102
    Reprinted as Chapter VII in D. Gutas - Greek philosophers in the Arabic tradition - Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000

     

  30. Gutas Dimitri. The starting point of philosophical studies in Alexandrian and arabic Aristotelianism. In Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985. pp. 115-123

     

  31. Huby Pamela M. Arabic evidence about Theophrastus' De Sensibus. In On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Wöhrle Georg. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002. pp. 59-63

     

  32. Isnardi Parente Margherita, "Théophraste, Metaphysica 6 a 23 ss.," Phronesis 26: 49-64 (1971).
    "Le passage 6 a 23 ss. de la Métaphysique de Théophraste, si, contre l'opinion de plusieurs éditeurs, on le lit sans y supprimer aucun mot, nous donne un exemple parmi les autres et très important, de la tendance de la première Academie (et non pas de Platon lui même, la théorie qu'on y envisage ne pouvant pas être reconduite a Platon) a voir la realité, dans sa totalité, partagée en deux chaînes métaphysiques, celle des êtres qui dépendent de l'Un et des nombres (l'âme, le ciel, le temps, tout ce qui a en soi un principe d'ordre mathématique) et celle des êtres qui dependent de la Dyade indefinie, qui n'ont en soi aucune forme, ordre ou determination."

     

  33. Kneale William and Kneale Martha. The development of logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1962.
    Reprinted 1975 with corrections; on Theophrastus see pp. 100-112

     

  34. Kneale William and Kneale Martha. Prosleptic propositions and arguments. In Islamic philosophy and the classical tradition. Essays presented by his friends and pupils to Richard Walzer on his seventieth birthday. Edited by Stern S.M., Hourani Albert, and Brown Vivian. London: Bruno Cassirer 1972. pp. 189-207

     

  35. Kraemer Hans-Joachim. Zum Standort der Metaphysik Theophrasts. In Zetesis. Album amicorum: door vrienden en collegas aangeboden aan E. de Strycker. Antwerpen-Utrecht: De Nederlandse Boekhandel 1973. pp. 206-214
    "La Métaphysique de Théophraste constitue une prise de position indépendante en face du platonisme de l'Académie; elle s'écarte sur des points non négligeables de celle d'Aristote, pour autant que celle-ci ressort des oeuvres conservées, et se rapproche parfois de l'orthodoxie académicienne. On ne saurait décider si cette attitude représente un retour au platonisme, ou si Théophraste est resté à un stade ancien de l'évolution, correspondant à celui des premières oeuvres d'Aristote."

     

  36. Laks André, Most Glenn W., and Rudolph Enno. Four notes on Theophrastus' Metaphysics. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 224-256
    1) The relative date of the Metaphysics ; 2) E)NERGEIA in Aristotle and Theophrastus ; 3) Eurytus in Theophrastus' Metaphysics ; 4) Heraclitus D-K 22 B 124 in Theophrastus' Metaphysics.

     

  37. Laks André. Histoire, doxographie, vérité. Études sur Aristote, Théophraste et la philosophie présocratique. Leuven: Peeters 2007.

     

  38. Lennox James G. Theophrastus on the limits of teleology. In Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985. pp. 143-163

     

  39. Long Anthony A. Theophrastus and the Stoa. In Theophrastus.Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998. pp. 355-383

     

  40. Mansfeld Jaap, "A Theophrastean excursus on God and Nature and its aftermath in Hellenistic thought," Phronesis 37: 314-335 (1992).

     

  41. Margoliouth David Samuel, "Remarks on the Arabic version of the Metaphysics of Theophrastus," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society: 187-252 (1892).

     

  42. Modrak Deborah, "Theophrastus and recent scholarship," Journal of the History of Ideas 55: 337-345 (1994).
    Reviewed works: On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus. by William W. Fortenbaugh
    Theophrastus of Eresus on his Life and Work. by William W. Fortenbaugh; Pamela M. Huby; Anthony A. Long
    Theophrastean Studies on Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric. by William W. Fortenbaugh; Robert W. Sharples
    Cicero's Knowledge of the Peripatos. by William W. Fortenbaugh; Peter Steinmetz
    Theopharastus His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings. by William W. Fortenbaugh; Dimitri Gutas
    Theophrastus of Eresus Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. by William W. Fortenbaugh; Pamela M. Huby; Robert W. Sharples; Dimitri Gutas

     

  43. Most Glenn W., "Three Latin translations of Theophrastus' Metaphysics," Revue d'Histoire des Texts 18: 169-200 (1988).
    "Recherches sur le texte grec utilisé par Barthélemy de Messine, Gregorius Tiphernas et l'auteur de la traduction anonyme publiée par Henri Estienne (Paris 1515) pour leurs versions respectives de la Métaphysique. Il apparaît que ces traductions reposent toutes sur des mansucripts conservés et ne peuvent guère contribuer à l'établissement du texte."

     

  44. Poetscher Walter. Strukturprobleme der aristotelischen und theophrastischen Gottesvorstellung. Leiden: Brill 1970.

     

  45. Raalte Marlein Van. The idea of the cosmos as an organic whole in Theophrastus' Metaphysics. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 189-215
    "Detailed study of the text reveals that, in spite of its aporetic character, Theophrastus's Metaphysics contains not only a criticism of Aristotelian tenets such as the principle of teleology and the idea of an unmoved mover, but also his own suggestions for a different kind of explanation, in which the cosmos is conceived as a hierarchically structured whole bound by the natural coherence of its parts. Theophrastus's final rejection of Platonic formism -- which takes to its logical conclusion the course taken by Aristotle himself -- accounts for his affinity with both Heraclitean and Stoic thought."

     

  46. Raalte Marlein Van, "God and the nature of the world: the "theological excursus" in Theophrastus' Meteorology," Mnemosyne 56: 306-342 (2003).
    "The so-called theological excursus in the Arabic translation of Theophrastus' Meteorology shows a division between two kinds of causation that gives rise to serious doubts concerning the authorship of the passage. Whereas from the Metaphysics it may be inferred that Theophrastus was inclined to consider the mode of being of the cosmos, by its very essence consisting of both order and disorder, as good and divine, the excursus maintains that god is responsible only for the order in the world (which is good), whereas the nature of the world itself, with its plurality of causes, accounts for the disorder (which is bad). It is argued that those passages adduced as a parallel for the excursus (from the Metaphysics and De pietate in particular) do not bear out this claim, and that other Theophrastean texts and sources make it unlikely that Theophrastus is the author of the excursus in its present form."

     

  47. Rashed Marwan. Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie. Berlin: de Gruyter 2007.
    Chapitre I. Les aristotélismes possibles et l'éxegèse ancienne § 2. Le questionnaire de Théophraste 6-7 et Chapitre X. Mécanisme § 1. Eternité et absoluité: l'hésitation péripateticienne et le principe de Théophraste 261; § 2. Alexandre et le problème de Théophraste 269.

     

  48. Reale Giovanni. Teofrasto e la sua aporetica metafisica. Brescia: La Scuola 1964.
    Saggio di ricostruzione e di interpretazione storico-filosofica con traduzione e commento della "Metafisica".
    Ristampa parziale in: G. Reale - Il concetto di filosofia prima e l'unità della Metafisica di Aristotele - Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1961 (ristampa: Milano, Bompiani, 2008).

    "A complete and systematic analysis is offered of the relations between Aristotle's Metaphysics and Theophrastus book of the same title. The author has two aims. One is to clarify the historical and philosophical significance of the latter work. The other is to find external (and therefore particularly compelling) evidence in favour of Reale's unitary account of Aristotle's Metaphysics. The aporetic nature of Theophrastus' writing begs a comparison with the aporetic book in Aristotle, even though Theophrastus' aporiai are almost all internal to Aristotelian thought. Convergences between Theophrastus and the book Lambda help Reale to establish the genuineness of this book. But the main attention is on the relation between Theophrastus and Aristotle. From comparative analysis it emerges that the break Jaeger thought he detected between, on the one hand, 8 and, on the other, 1 - 7 and 9- 10 is non-existent, and hence that, following the traditional sequence, the book is thematically and philosophically a unit. As to the philosophical position of Theophrastus, Reale shows that his Metaphysics represents a serious break with Aristotle, in the sense that, by reducing metaphysics to cosmology, he almost completely loses any sense of the ontological and ousiologial dimension of Aristotle's thought."

     

  49. Reale Giovanni. The concept of first philosophy and the unity of the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Albany: State University of New York Press 1980.
    This volume is a translation of "Il concetto di filosofia prima e l'unità della Metafisica di Aristotele", Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1967, third edition). In addition the volume includes the fourth chapter from Reale's work on Theophrastus ("Teofrasto e la sua aporetica metafisica", 1964), as well as a translation of Reale's translation of Theophrastus' Metaphysics.

     

  50. Regenbogen Otto. Theophrastus von Eresos. In Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol VII Suppl. Edited by Pauly August and Wissowa Georg. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler 1940. pp. 1354-1562

     

  51. Repici Luciana, "Limits of teleology in Theophrastus' Metaphysics?," Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 72: 182-213 (1990).

     

  52. Rudolph Enno. Energeia in Aristotle and Theophrastus. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 233-237

     

  53. Runia David T. Aristotle and Theophrastus conjoined in the writings of Cicero. In Cicero's knowledge of the Peripatos. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Steinmetz Peter. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1989. pp. 23-38
    "An analysis is given of the 16 passages in Cicero's rhetorical and philosophical works where the names of Aristotle and Theophrastus are mentioned together. Cicero joins them together so often (1) because of his great interest in philosophical successions, and (2) because he regards the encyclopedic research carried out in the early Peripatos as an example to follow in his own attempt to present philosophy to a Roman audience."

     

  54. Rutten Christian and Benzécri Jean-Paul, "Métaphysique d'Aristote et Métaphysique de Théophraste: analyse comparative des chapitres fondée sur les fréquences d'emploi des parties du discours," Cahiers de l'Analyse de Données 14: 37-58 (1990).

     

  55. Sharples Robert W. Theophrastus as philosopher and Aristotelian. In Theophrastus.Reappraising the sources. Edited by Ophuijsen Johannes Van and Raalte Marlein Van. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1998. pp. 267-280

     

  56. Skemp Joseph B. The Metaphysics of Theophrastus in relation to the doctrine kinesis in Plato's later dialogues. In Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast. Verhandlungen des 4. Symposium Aristotelicum veranstaltet in Göteborg, August 1966. Edited by Düring Ingemar. Heidelberg: Stiehm 1969. pp. 217-223

     

  57. Sollenberger Michael G. Diogenes Laertius 5.36-57: The Vita Theophrasti. In Theophrastus of Eresus. On his life and work. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W., Huby Pamela M., and Long Anthony A. New Brunswick: Transaction Books 1985. pp. 1-62

     

  58. Sollenberger Michael G. The lives of the Peripatetics: an analysis of the contents and structure of Diogenes Laertius' 'Vitae philosophorum' book 5. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 36.6. Edited by Haase Wolfgang and Temporini Hildegard. Berlin: de Gruyter 1992. pp. 3793-3879

     

  59. Sorabji Richard. Theophrastus on place. In Theophrastean studies: on natural science, physics and metaphysics, ethics, religion and rhetoric. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Sharples Robert W. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers 1988. pp. 139-166

     

  60. Theiler Willy, "Die Entstehung der Metaphysik des Aristoteles. Mit einem Anhang über Theophrasts Metaphysik," Museum Helveticum 15: 85-105 (1958).
    Reprinted in: W. Theiler - Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur - Berlin, de Gruyter, 1970 pp. 318-342

     

  61. Usener Hermann, "Zur Theophrasts metaphysichen Bruchstück," Rheinisches Museum 16: 259-281 (1861).
    Reprinted in: H. Usener - Kleine Schriften. Arbeiten zur griechischen Philosophie und Rhetorik. Grammatische und text-kritische Beitrage - Vol. I, Leipzig-Berlin, Teubner1912, pp. 91-111

     

  62. Viano Cristina, "Eraclito nella Metafisica di Teofrasto. Il Fr. 124 DK e la discussione sui principi del Cap. IV e V," Rivista di Storia della Filosofia 3: 455-476 (1992).

     

  63. White Stephen A. Opuscula and Opera in the Catalogue of Theophrastus' works. In On the Opuscula of Theophrastus. Edited by Fortenbaugh William W. and Wöhrle Georg. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag 2002. pp. 9-38

     

  64. Yartz Frank J., "The importance of Theophrastus' Metaphysics in ancient Greek intellectual history," Ancient World 29: 151-160 (1998).
    "In raising important questions about the nature of In raising important questions about the nature of arché, Theophrastus puts the Greek philosophers in dialogue with each other; hence we get a sense of the intellectual history of the period, especially concerning how the view of the astronomers and empirical scientists had an impact on the notions held earlier by Aristotle."

     

RELATED PAGES

Peripatetic Logic: The Work of Eudemus of Rhodes and Theophrastus

 

ontology: valid xhtml 1.0 strict

Last modified: Monday, February 08, 2010