sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aristoxenus, Theophrastus

CHAPTER ONE

THEOPHRASTUS' DE SENSIBUS

Theophrastus' life (ca. 370/l-279 BC) and actlVltles came after a culminating period in the development of Greek . This simple fact explains much of his historical position as a philosopher. We are told that he came to from the town of Eressos on the island ofLesbos at the age of seventeen(± 363 BC) and attended some of 's lectures at the Academy. 1 Plato was an old man and presumably working on the cosmological theory expounded in the Timaeus. But Theophrastus soon became a pupil of and worked closely with him as a colleague for almost forty years. On succeeding Aristotle he assumed the formidable task of continuing the latter's wide-ranging activities. From what we know he continued lecturing on almost all the subjects taught by Aristotle, thus consolidating and expanding the various disciplines his predecessor had developed. Despite the continuity in doctrine and working method Theo­ phrastus also marks a transition. Aristotle took up investigations in , , , and many other fields, and his overall theory aimed at reaching a coherent and metaphysically well-founded system. Eudemus, a contemporary of Theophrastus, worked on and (though not a mathematician himself). , the closest competitor of Theophrastus for the succession of Aristotle, wrote a 'critical history' of the theory of .2 Theophrastus, however, seems to have preferred physics to , initiating a shift of attention fully developed by his successor Strato, nicknamed "the physical philosopher" (6 qn)cruco<;). For this reason Theophrastus

1 D.L. V 36. About Theophrastus' life we know very little; what we know is based on D.L. V and Hesychius, see Sollenberger (1983) 2lf. 2 See e.g. Jaeger (1934) 329. The alleged strict Arbeitsteilung which according to Diels (DG 222) existed in the because Aristotle gave the 'Auftrag'(Steinmetz 350), seems uncalled for. One may assume that each pupil chose a subject according to his interest and capacities (perhaps with some encouragement from Aristotle), so that some sort of division of the work naturally developed out of this on-going research. 12 CHAPTER ONE may be considered a transitional figure from the great metaphysical systems to a more physical mode of thinking. Theophrastus' empiri­ cism may also have influenced thinkers outside his own school.3

1. Date and Transmission qf the DS

It seems that the survival of the DS must be due to good fortune. 4 During the the discussion of philosophical ideas of the past in written form became an important part of teaching practice. Philosophical systems were summarised into concise and unoriginal overviews. 5 These collections and handbooks soon were mechanically copied and regularly adapted; the doxographi entered the historical scene. It is precisely the existence of these lists - with their concise overviews of opinions arranged according to subjects -which could easily have made redundant an elaborate text such as the DS. We know next to nothing about its survival in the form as we have it now, although some traces of its 'influence' can be gleaned from scattered echoes. 6 In modern too it has known a peculiar history as to its transmission and the attention it received from the onwards. It was rediscovered some after the of the Aristotelian Corpus (Venice Aldine press, 1495-97), and printed in the sixth volume which contained many of Theophrastus' works. 7 Yet it remained relatively unknown. It was omitted from the (afterwards

3 Cf. Grumach (1932) 62f., Steinmetz (1964) 60 ff., 274 ff., 329-34; Mansfeld (1992c). 4 This view was already expressed by Usener (1858: 27), who had restarted research into Theophrastus' works (see Ch. 7.1 ). 5 On the of the doxographic genre see Mansfeld ( 1990) 305 7 ff., Mansfeld-Runia 1997. That collections of views already existed in some form before Aristotle is argued in Mansfeld (1986). It remains true, however, that Aristotle set the pace for later developments (see Ch. 7.2). 6 On this particular topic see e.g. my forthcoming paper 'Theophrastean Echoes? Some Remarks on the Early Transmission of Theophrastus' De sensibus' (presented at Trier conference Project Theophrastusjuly 1999). 7 The manuscript (cf. McDiarmid, 1962: 21) must have been discovered between this date and that of the editio princeps of the (so-called) A/dina altera by Jovanni Baptista Camotius (1552) in which it was included. It also appeared in the Paris edition by H. Stephanus ( 155 7). It would be interesting to find out whether this is an indication that the work was considered not very useful for learning more about Theophrastus' own views. For more on the fortuna of the text see especially Schmitt (1971) 275 ff.