<<

. 5
( 5)



¯
16 Kingsley (1995a: 17).
17 Ibid.
18 Aristotle, DC 270 b 24“5 (¼ DK 59 a 73); DC 302 b 2“5 (¼ DK 59 a 43); Meteor. 369 b 21“31
(¼ DK 59 a 84).
19 Theophrastus, De sensibus 59. 6“7 (¼ Dox. gr. 516. 6“7).
20 Simpl., In DC 112. 2 (¼ DK 59 a 73).
Epilogue 117
have been encouraged by this etymology.21 The few extant fragments of
Anaxagoras are not very helpful in this case.22 From the form of Anaxag-
oras™ reasoning, aither seems to be the rare, the hot, and the dry; by
¯
contrast, aer seems to be the dense, the moist, the cold, and the dark.
¯
Moreover, aither and aer seem to be mixtures, not elements. Aristotle
¯ ¯
himself reports that for Anaxagoras ¬re and air are mixtures of ¬‚esh and
bones and the like.23 Even if the identi¬cation of aither with ¬re is an
¯
interpretation by Aristotle, rather than a direct statement by Anaxag-
oras,24 the (ab)use of the word aither, and the confusion that it could
¯
give rise to, was surely important to Aristotle. In the extant works,
Aristotle is extremely reluctant to use the name aither. The only exception
¯
is the use of aither in a passage from the Physics, where Aristotle says that
¯
the earth is within the water, the water within the air, the air within the
aither, and the aither within the ouranos (212 b 20“2). But in this case
¯ ¯
aither refers to the sublunary ¬re, not the celestial simple body. It is
¯
unfortunate that Aristotle™s reticence in using the name aither is not
¯
appreciated enough. The fact that Aristotle avoids using this word is often
overlooked, if not obscured and denied, by routinely referring to Aris-
totle™s celestial simple body as aither.25
¯


21 I owe this point to Bob Sharples. There is a probable allusion to the etymological connection
between aither and aithein in Euripides, Tr. 1079“80: “aithera te poleos olomenas/ an puros
¯ ¯
aithomena kateluse horma.”
22 Here are the relevant fragments. In the original mixture “aer and aither enveloped all things” (DK
¯ ¯
59 b 1). At a very early stage of the separation initiated by the nous, “aer and aither were separated
¯ ¯
off ” (DK 59 b 2). Moreover, “the dense, the moist, the cold and the dark gathered where earth is
now, while the rare, the hot and the dry receded to the further <region> of aither ” (DK 59 b 15).
¯
23 DC 302 a 31 “ b 2 (¼ DK 59 a 73). Cf. GC 314 a 28 “ b 1, where we are told that ¬re, air, water,
and earth are seed-aggregates, panspermiai.
24 Kingsley (1995b: 26“9).
25 A complication: from Cicero we learn that in the third book of his On Philosophy Aristotle
attributed divinity to a number of different things, including the caeli ardor (Cicero, Nat. deor. i
33, ¼ Dox. gr. 539. 15 ¼ On Phil., fr. 26 Ross (1955b)). Admittedly, the Latin word ardor could be
used to translate the Greek term aither. See, for example, Cicero, Nat. deor. ii 41: “In ardore celesti
¯
qui aether vel caelum nominetur.” In this case the Stoic identi¬cation of aither with ¬re could
¯
hardly be avoided (aither < aithein, and ardor < ardere, burning). But Aristotle (like Plato) does
¯
not seem to be interested in the association of aither with heat and burning and, ultimately, ¬re.
¯
This association becomes prominent in the Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic tradition, and
especially in Stoic sources. We should also bear in mind that Cicero is not copying from
Aristotle™s On Philosophy but from a doxographical report which is tainted by anti-Aristotelian
bias (the Epicurean Phaedrus?). Prejudiced misunderstanding, deliberate adaptation, and
contamination with later views, cannot be excluded in this case. For a recent discussion of this
testimony as evidence for Aristotle™s alleged doctrine of aither in the On Philosophy, see Hahm
¯
(1982: 60“74). I have learned a lot from this excellent article, even though I do not share its
conclusion, namely that in the dialogue On Philosophy Aristotle could have argued that the
celestial bodies are made of ¬re.
Aristotle and the Science of Nature
118
But how did the celestial simple body come to be associated with
aither? In the DC Aristotle records an etymology which does not presup-
¯
pose the identi¬cation of aither with ¬re but emphasizes the mobility of
¯
aither (aither < aei thei, always running).26 The same etymology is
¯ ¯
recalled by Plato in the Cratylus (aither < aei thei peri ton aera rheon).27
¯ ¯ ¯
In the light of the relevance given to the mobility of aither, it is not
¯
dif¬cult to see how the simple celestial body came to be regarded as an
aethereal body; that is, a body which is never stationary and forever
moving in a circle. The Aristotelian treatise De mundo provides us with
a vivid example of how acceptance of the Platonic/Aristotelian etymology
aither < aei thein (always running), and rejection of the alternative
¯
etymology aither < aithein (burning), leads to the association of aither
¯ ¯
with the celestial simple body. The author of the De mundo endorses the
division of the natural world into a celestial and a sublunary realm. As for
the celestial realm, he argues that the substance of the heaven and the stars
is aither. Signi¬cantly enough, the author of the De mundo feels like
¯
adding that he uses this term not because the heaven and the stars are
made of a ¬ery stuff (as some people do), but because the heaven and the
stars are forever moving in a circle (392 a 5“9).
We must bear in mind that the celestial simple body is not just
different from earth, water, air, and ¬re; for Aristotle, this body cannot
be reduced to earth, water, air, and ¬re. It follows that Aristotle is
committed to the existence of material discontinuity in the natural world.
By calling the celestial simple body aither, Aristotle would have obscured
¯
this crucial aspect of his doctrine. Most people would have thought of the
celestial simple body as a type of air or ¬re, and as such reducible to air or
¬re. The post-Aristotelian history of the word aither is particularly in-
¯
28
structive on this point. The Stoics accepted the identi¬cation of aither ¯
with ¬re. Zeno of Citium, for example, argued that the celestial bodies are
intelligent, living beings, and are made of ¬re. He also distinguished
between creative ¬re and destructive ¬re, and identi¬ed the celestial ¬re
with creative ¬re, pur technikon.29 Zeno referred to the celestial ¬re as
¯
aither. So did Chrysippus, and later on Posidonius.31 By the time of
30
¯

26 DC 270 b 20“3.
27 Crat., 410 b 6“7.
28 For the use of the name aither in the Epinomis in connection with the ¬fth regular polyhedron
¯
(the dodecahedron), see chapter 3, “Motions.”
29 Stob., Ecl. i 214. 1“3 (¼ Arius Didymus fr. 33 ¼ SVF i 120).
30 Achilles, Isagoge 5 (¼ SVF i 115).
31 On Chrysippus and his view that the outermost part of the world consists of aither and is
¯
populated by stars, see Stob., Ecl. i 219. 19“25 (¼ Arius Didymus fr. 31 ¼ SVF ii 527). On
Epilogue 119
Posidonius, there is no doubt that the view that the celestial bodies are
made of aither is intended to secure the material unity of the natural
¯
world.
By now it should be clear that a never stationary, ¬re-like aither could
¯
account for the mobility of the celestial bodies. But Aristotle™s celestial
simple body is not just a never stationary body which is naturally moving
in a circle. There is more to this simple body than the capacity to perform
eternal circular motion.32 For Aristotle, the celestial simple body is not
subject to growth and decline. By positing a celestial simple body with
such extraordinary features Aristotle is not only af¬rming the division of
the natural world into a celestial and a sublunary part, he is also introdu-
cing an important discontinuity within the natural world which few in
antiquity were prepared to accept. By brie¬‚y looking at the ancient views
on the topic of celestial nourishment we might come to appreciate what is
remarkably unique about Aristotle™s conception of the natural world. The
Hippocratic author of Breaths, for example, claims that air is the nourish-
ment for the sun, the moon, and the rest of the stars; without air these
celestial bodies could not live.33 He is obviously committed to the view
that the celestial bodies are alive and made of ¬re. But ¬re, as it is
experienced on earth, cannot exist without nourishment. Fire burns as
long as it has fuel, and thereby grows or diminishes. For the author of
Breaths, the celestial bodies enjoy an eternal life because they are continu-
ously nourished by the surrounding air, which he calls pneuma. It would
be a mistake to dismiss celestial nutrition as a piece of bizarre primitivism.
The view that the celestial bodies are fed with the exhalations of the sea
was not only quite old but also largely accepted in antiquity, before and

Posidonius and his view that the divine bodies are composed of aither, radiant and ¬re-like, never
¯
stationary but forever moving in a circle, see Stob., Ecl. i 206. 19“24 (¼ Arius Didymus fr. 32 ¼
Edelstein and Kidd, fr. 127).
32 Aristotle often refers to the celestial simple body as “the body moving in a circle,” to kukloi ¯
pheromenon soma (269 b 31), or to kukloi soma (270 a 33 and 279 b 3), or ¬nally to egkuklion soma
¯ ¯¯ ¯
(286 a 12 and 286 b 7). Yet it would be a mistake to think that the fact that the celestial simple
body naturally performs circular motion is the only thing that really matters in the controversy
over its existence. I refer the reader to chapter 3, “Motions,” and the discussion of Xenarchus™
arguments for the view that ¬re can move forever in a circle once it has reached its natural place.
The fortune that these arguments enjoyed in antiquity documents the fact that there is no need to
posit the existence of a wholly distinct simple body, if mobility is the only feature that really
matters in the account of celestial motion. From very early on, however, mobility became the
feature of the celestial simple body. See, for example, Sextus Emp., HP iii 30“2. Here Aristotle is
singled out because he took the view that the material principles are “¬re, air, water, earth,
<and> the body which is revolving in a circle [to kuklophoretikon soma].” Cf. also [Galen], Hist.
¯ ¯
philos. 18 (¼ Dox. gr. 610. 17“18), who reports the very same piece of doxography.
33 Hippocrates, Breaths iii, 3.
Aristotle and the Science of Nature
120
after Aristotle. Consider the case of the Stoics. For them, the celestial
bodies are made of ¬re of a special type, celestial ¬re or aither. But again,
¯
¬re requires nourishment. The Stoics did not think that celestial ¬re was
an exception to the rule. So they extended this feature of ¬re to celestial
¬re: no ¬re, including celestial ¬re, could continue to exist without some
kind of nourishment. Therefore the sun and the other celestial bodies,
being composed of ¬re, have to take in nourishment. For the Stoics, they
are nourished by exhalations of the ocean (¼ the great sea).34 This
doctrine has important repercussions in the Stoic system. It plays a role
in the explanation of the mechanism of cyclical destruction of the world
by con¬‚agration (the Stoic technical word for this phenomenon is ek-
purosis). It also commits the Stoics to the view that exchange of material
takes place between the different parts of the natural world, on the crucial
assumption that there is material unity in the natural world. By admitting
material exchange between the heavens and the rest of the natural world,
the Stoics put themselves in direct continuity with the pre-Platonic
investigation of nature.35 The view that there is material exchange between
the different parts of the natural world was largely accepted in antiquity.
Anaximenes seems to have thought that the celestial bodies come into
existence when moisture rising from the earth is rare¬ed so far as to
become ¬re.36 Heraclitus held that the celestial bodies are ¬re, and ¬re
is maintained by moist evaporations ascending from the sea.37 Against this
background, Aristotle emerges as an extraordinary exception. In the
Meteorology he argues against the pre-Platonic idea that the celestial bodies
are nourished by the moisture arising from the sea. His criticism is
directed primarily against Heraclitus,38 but it can be extended to all
cosmologies and cosmogonies that are based on the idea that the celestial
bodies are made of ¬re, and ¬re is nourished by moisture drawn from the


34 For Zeno, the sun is an intelligent entity, kindled by exhalation from the sea (Etymol. Gud. s. v.
Helios ¼ SVF i 121). For Cleanthes, the sun is nourished by the exhalations from the ocean
(Cicero, Nat. deor. ii 40 ¼ SVF i 504). Jaeger (1948: 139) argues that Cleanthes took this view
over from Aristotle™s dialogue On Philosophy and made it at home in the Stoic system. This is very
unlikely. To begin with, this view was held by Zeno, the founder of the school. Secondly, and
more importantly, Cleanthes (as well as Zeno) did not have to take this view over from Aristotle.
It was commonly held in antiquity and went back, ultimately, to the pre-Platonic physiologoi.
There is evidence that Chrysippus endorsed this view. See Chrysippus apud Plutarch, De
stoicorum repugnantiis 41 (¼ SVF ii 579).
¨
35 The connection did not escape the doxographers. See Aetius ii 17. 4: “Heraclitus and the Stoics
held that the stars are nourished from the terrestrial exhalations.”
36 Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium i 7 (¼ DK 13 a 7.5).
37 Diog. Laert., ix 1.9 (¼ DK 22 a 1. 9 10); Stob., Ecl. i 209. 5“10 (¼ Aetius ii 20. 16 ¼ DK 22 a 12).
¨
38 Meteor. 355 a 14.
Epilogue 121
sublunary world. Against all his predecessors, Aristotle is persuaded that
the celestial bodies are materially different from the sublunary bodies, and
no exchange of material is possible between the celestial and the sublunary
world. Aristotle introduces a material discontinuity within the natural
world that few in antiquity were prepared to accept. There is little but
clear evidence that some of them even felt that Aristotle was speaking
about two disconnected worlds (or two disconnected kosmoi).39 But this is
emphatically not Aristotle™s view. His view is that the celestial and the
sublunary world form one single causal system which admits an import-
ant discontinuity within itself. In this book, I have tried to shed light on
the nature of the discontinuity as well as the reasons that may have led
Aristotle to take this view.

39 Consider, for example, the following passage from Epiphanius, Adversus haereses iii 31 (¼ Dox. gr.
592. 12“14): “<Aristotle> says that there are two kosmoi: the up there and the down here; and the
up there is imperishable, whereas the down here is perishable.”
Bibliography




This bibliography is not intended to be exhaustive. It lists only works
explicitly referred to, plus some others, not explicitly referred to, that I
have found especially interesting and useful.

editions, collections of testimonies
All translations are based on the following editions or collections of
testimonies:
Adler, A. (ed.) (1928“38) Suidae lexicon. Lexicographi graeci, 5 vols. Stuttgart.
Amand de Mendieta, E. and Rudberg, S. Y. (eds.) (1997) Basilius von Caesarea,
Homelien zum Hexaemeron. Berlin.
Arnim, J. von (ed.) (1903“5) Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vols. Leipzig.
´ `
Aujac, G. (ed.) (1975) Geminus: Introduction aux phenomenes. Paris.
Bruns, I. (ed.) (1887) Alexander of Aphrodisias: De anima cum Mantissa,
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Suppl. 2.1. Berlin.
(1892) Alexander of Aphrodisias: Quaestiones, De fato, De mixtione,
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Suppl. 2.2. Berlin.
Des Places, E. (ed.) (1973) Numenius: Fragments. Paris.
Diehl, E. (ed.) (1903“6) Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria,
3 vols. Leipzig.
Diels, H. (ed.) (1879) Doxography graeci. Berlin.
and Kranz, W. (eds.) (19516) Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin.
Drossaart, L. (ed.) (1965) Aristotle: De generatione animalium. Oxford.
Duke, E. A., Hicken, W. F., Nicoll, W. S. M., Robinson, D. B. and Strachan,
J. C. G. (eds.) (1995) Plato: Opera, tomus I: Tetralogias I“II. Oxford.
Edelstein, L. and Kidd, I. G. (eds.) (1972) Posidonius, Fragments. Cambridge.
Forbes, F. H. (ed.) (1918) Aristotle: Meteorologica. Cambridge, MA.
Gigon, O. (ed.) (1987) Aristotelis opera, vol. 3: Librorum deperditorum fragmenta.
Berlin.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (ed.) (19866) Aristotle. On the Heavens. Cambridge, MA.
Hayduck, M. (ed.) (1899) Alexander of Aphrodisias: In Meteorologica, Commentaria
in Aristotelem Greca Vol. 3.1. Berlin.


122
Bibliography 123
(1901) Philoponus: In Meteora, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Vol. 14.1.
Berlin.
Heiberg, I. L. (ed.) (1894) Simplicius: In De Caelo, Commentaria in Aristotelem
Graeca Vol. 7.1. Berlin.
Heinze, R. (ed.) (1892) Xenocrates. Darstellung der Lehre und Sammlung der
Fragmente. Leipzig.
Henry, P. and Schwyzer, H.-R. (eds.) (1964“82) Plotini opera, 3 vols. Oxford.
Hiller, E. (ed.) (1878) Theonis Smyrnaei philosophi platonici Expositiom rerum
mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium. Leipzig.
Jaeger, W. (ed.) (1957) Aristotle: Metaphysica. Oxford.
Jouanna, J. (ed.) (1975) Hippocrate: La nature de l™homme, Corpus Medicorum
Graecorum Vol. 1.3. Berlin.
(1988) Hippocrate: De vents. De l™art. Paris.
´
(1990) Hippocrate: De l™ancienne medicine. Paris.
Kroll, G. (ed.) (1899“1901) Procli Diadochi in Platonis Republicam commentarii,
2 vols. Leipzig.
Lachenaud, G. (ed.) (1993) Plutarch: Opinions des philosophes. Paris.
Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (eds.) (1988) The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge.
Maas, E. (ed.) (1898) Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae. Berlin.
Marcovich, M. (ed.) (1986) Hippolytus: Refutatio omnium haeresium. Berlin and
New York.
(1990a) Athenagoras: Legatio pro Christianis. Berlin and New York.
(1990b) [Iustinus]: Cohortatio ad Graecos. Berlin and New York.
(1999“2000) Diogenes Laertius: Vitae philosophorum, 3 vols. vol. i: Libri i“x; vol.
ii: Excerpta Byzantina; vol. iii: Indices, ed. H. Gaertner. Munich and Leipzig.
Morani, M. (ed.) (1987) Nemesius: De natura hominis. Leipzig.
Moraux, P. (ed.) (1965) Aristote: Du Ciel. Paris.
Mutchmann, H. and Mau, J. (eds.) (1958“62) Sextus Empiricus: Opera, 4 vols.
Leipzig.
Pease, A. S. (ed.) (1955) Cicero: De natura deorum. Cambridge, MA.
Rose, V. (ed.) (1886) Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig.
Ross, W. D. (ed.) (1936) Aristotle: Physics. Oxford.
(1955a) Aristotle: Parva naturalia. Oxford.
(1955b) Fragmenta selecta Aristotelis. Oxford.
(1956) Aristotle: De anima. Oxford.
Schenkel, K. (ed.) (1896“7) Ambrose: Exameron. Prague, Vienna, and Leipzig.
¨
Stuve, W. (ed.) (1900) Olympiodorus: In Meteora, Commentaria in Aristotelem
Graeca Vol. 12.2. Berlin.
Wachsmuth, K. (ed.) (1884) Stobaeus: Eclogae physicae et ethicae. Berlin.
Walzer, R. (ed.) (1934) Aristotelis dialogorum fragmenta. Florence.
Wehrli, F. (ed.) (1944“78) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Basel
and Stuttgart.
Wendland, P. (ed.) (1901) Alexander of Aphrodisias: In De sensu, Commentaria in
Aristotelem Graeca, vol. 3.1. Berlin.
Bibliography
124
``
´
Westernik, L. G., Trouillard, J., and Segond, A. Ph. (eds.) (1990) Prolegomenes a
la philosophie de Platon. Paris.
I based my translations from the De partibus animalium on:
¨
During, I. (1943) Aristotle™s De partibus animalium. Critical and Literary
¨
Commentaries. Goteborg.


secondary literature
Anton, J. P. (1957) Aristotle™s Theory of Contrariety. London.
Arnim Von, J. (1907) Die Entstehung des Gotteslehre des Aristoteles. Vienna.
Balme, D. (1987) “Teleology and necessity,” in Philosophical Issues in Aristotle™s
Biology, ed. A. Gotthelf and J. G. Lennox. Cambridge: 275“85.
Barnes, J. (1997) “Roman Aristotle,” in Philosophia Togata II. Aristotle and Plato
at Rome, ed. J. Barnes and M. Grif¬n. Oxford: 1“69.
Beere, J. B. (2003) “Counting the unmoved movers. Astronomy and explan-
¨
ation,” Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 85: 1“20.
Blank, D. L. (1998) Sextus Empiricus. Against the Grammarians. Oxford.
´¨
Bodeus, R. (2000) Aristotle and the Theology of Living Immortals. Albany, NY.
´
Bodnar, I. (1997a) “Alexander of Aphrodisias on celestial motion,” Phronesis 42:
190“205.
(1997b) “Movers and elemental motion in Aristotle,” Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy 15: 81“117.
Bogen, J. (1992) “Change and contrariety in Aristotle,” Phronesis 37: 1“21.
Bonitz, H. (1870) Index Aristotelicus. Berlin.
Bostock, D. (1982) “Aristotle on the principles of change in Physics 1,” in Logos
and Language. Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy, ed. M. C. Nussbaum
and M. Scho¬eld. Cambridge: 179“86.
Broadie, S. (1991) Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford.
(1996) “Nous and nature in Aristotle™s De anima iii,” Proceedings of the Boston
Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, ed. J. J. Clearly, 12: 163“76.
(2002) “Three philosophers look at the stars,” in Presocratic Philosophy. Essays
in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos, ed. V. Caston and D. W. Graham.
Aldershot: 303“12.
Brunschwig, J. (1991) “Qu™est-ce que la Physique d™Aristote?,” in La Physique
d™Aristote et les conditions d™une science de la nature, ed. F. De Grandt and
P. Souffrin. Paris: 11“39.
Burkert, W. (1959) “ΣTOIXEION Eine Semasiologische Studien,” Philologus
103: 167“97.
Burnyeat, M. F. (2001) A Map of Metaphysics Zeta. Pittsburgh.
(2002) “De anima II 5,” Phronesis 47: 28“90.
(2004) “Aristotle and the foundation of sublunary physics,” in Aristotle. On
Generation and Corruption, i. Proceeding of the 15th Symposium Aristotelicum,
ed. J. Mansfeld and F. J. de Haas. Oxford: 7“24.
Byrne, P. H. (1997) Analysis and Science in Aristotle. Albany, NY.
Bibliography 125
Cappelle, W. (1912) “Das Proemium der Meteorologie,” Hermes 47: 514“35.
(1913) “Zur Geschichte der meteorologischen Literature,” Hermes 48:
321“58.
¨
(1935) “Meteorologie,” in Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswis-
senschaft, rev. G. Wissowa, Suppl. vi. Stuttgart: 315“58.
Caston, V. (1996) “Aristotle on the relation of the intellect to the body.
Commentary on Broadie,” in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in
Ancient Philosophy, ed. J. J. Clearly, 12: 177“92.
Charles, D. (2000) “Metaphysics Lambda 2: matter and change,” in Aristotle™s
Metaphysics Lambda. Symposium Aristotelicum, ed. M. Frede and D.
Charles. Oxford: 81“110.
Charlton, W. (1970) Aristotle™s Physics I and II. Oxford.
Code, A. (1997) “The priority of ¬nal over ef¬cient cause in Aristotle™s Parts of
¨
animals,” in Aristotelische Biologie, ed. W. Kullmann and S. Follinger.
Stuttgart: 127“43.
(2000) “Metaphysics Lambda 5,” in Aristotle™s Metaphysics Lambda. Symposium
Aristotelicum, ed. M. Frede and D. Charles. Oxford: 161“79.
Cohen, S. M. (1994) “Aristotle on elemental motion,” Phronesis 39: 150“9.
(1996) Aristotle on Nature and Incomplete Substance. Cambridge.
Diels, H. (1899) Elementum. Eine Vorarbeit zum Geschichten und Lateinischen
Thesaurus. Leipzig.
Dillon, J. (2003) The Heirs of Plato: A Study of the Old Academy. Oxford.
Dover, K. J. (1968) Aristophanes. Clouds. Oxford.
Dunbar, N. (1997) Aristophanes. Birds. Oxford.
Easterling, H. J. (1964) “Quinta Natura,” Museum Helveticum 21: 73“85.
Effe, B. (1970) Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der aristotelischen Schrift
¨
“Uber der Philosophie”. Munich.
¨ ¨
Egli, F. (2003) Euripides im Kontext zeitgenossischer intellektueller Stromungen.
¨
Analyse der Funktion philosophischer Themen in den Tragodien und
Fragmenten. Munich and Leipzig.
Everson, S. (1997) Aristotle on Perception. Oxford.
Falcon, A. (1996) “Aristotle™s Theory of Division,” in Aristotle and After, ed.
R. Sorabji. London: 127“46
(2001) Corpi e movimenti. Il De caelo di Aristotele e la sua fortuna nel mondo
antico. Naples.
Frede, M. (2000) “Metaphysics Lambda 1,” in Aristotle™s Metaphysics Lambda.
Simposium Aristotelicum, ed. M. Frede and D. Charles. Oxford: 53“80.
¨
and Patzig, G. (eds.) (1988) “Metaphysik Z”. Text, Ubersetzung und Kommentar
2 vols. Munich.
Furley, D. (1989) “Aristotelian material in Cicero™s De natura deorum,” in
Cicero™s Knowledge of the Peripatos, ed. W. W. Fortenbough and P.
Steinmets. New Bruschwick and London.
(1999) “Aristotle the Natural Philosopher”, in From Aristotle to Augustine, ed.
D. Furley, Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. ii. London and
New York: 9“39.
Bibliography
126
(2003) “Aristotle and the atomists on forms and ¬nal causes,” in Perspectives on
Greek Philosophy. S. V. Keeling Memorial Lectures in Ancient Philosophy
1992“2002, ed. R. W. Sharples. Aldershot: 71“84.
Gaiser, K. (1962) Platons Ungeschriebene Lehre. Stuttgart.
Gill, M. L. (1989) Aristotle on Substance: The Paradox of Unity. Princeton, NJ.
Goldstein, B. R. (1997) “Saving the phenomena: the background to Ptolemy™s
planetary theory,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 28: 2“12.
Gottschalk, H. B. (1981) “Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the
time of Cicero to the end of the second century ad,” in Aufstieg und
¨
Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed. H. Temporini, vol. ii, 36.2. Berlin:
1079“174.
Grant, E. (1994) Planets, Stars, and Orbs. The Medieval Cosmos. Cambridge.
Guariglia, O. N. (1978) Quellenkritische und logische Untersuchungen zur
Gegensatzlehre des Aristoteles. Hildesheim and New York.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1932“3) “The Development of Aristotle™s Theology,”
Classical Quarterly 27: 162“71, and 28: 90“8.
Hahm, D. (1982) “The ¬fth element in Aristotle™s De philosophia: a critical re-
examination,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 102: 60“74.
Hamlyn, D. W. (1968) Aristotle De anima Books II and III (with Passages from
Book I). Oxford.
Hankinson, R. J. (2002) Simplicius: On Aristotle™s “On the Heavens 1.1“4”.
London and Ithaca, NY.
(2002“3) “Xenarchus, Alexander, and Simplicius on simple motions, bodies and
magnitudes,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46: 19“42.
Jaeger, W. (1948) Aristotle. Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans.
R. Robinson. Oxford.
Jouanna, J. (1999) Hippocrates, trans. M. B. DeBevoise. Baltimore, MD.
Judson, L. (1991) Aristotle™s Physics. A Collection of Essays. Oxford.
(1994) “Heavenly Motion and the Unmoved Mover,” in Self-Motion: from
Aristotle to Newton, ed. M. L. Gill and J. G. Lennox. Princeton, NJ:
155“71.
Kahn, C. H. (1960) Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New York.
Kelsey, S. (2003) “Aristotle™s de¬nition of nature,” Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy 25: 59“88.
Kingsley, P. (1995a) Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic. Empedocles and the
Pythagorean Tradition. Oxford.
(1995b) “Note on air: four questions of meaning in Empedocles and
Anaxagoras,” Classical Quarterly N.S. 45: 26“9.
Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E., and Scho¬eld, M. (eds.) (1983) The Presocratic
Philosophers. Cambridge.
Koller, K. (1955) “Stoicheion,” Glotta 34: 161“74.
¨
Kramer, K. (1989) Platone e i fondamenti della meta¬sica. Milan.
`
Labarriere, J.-L. (1984) “Imagination humain et imagination animal chez
Aristote,” Phronesis 29: 17“49.
Le Blond, J. M. (1938) Eulogos et l™argument de convenance chez Aristote. Paris.
Bibliography 127
Lang, H. S. (1992) Aristotle™s Physics and its Medieval Varieties. Albany, NY.
(1998) The Order of Nature in Aristotle™s Physics. Place and the Elements.
Cambridge.
Leggatt, S. (ed.) (1995) Aristotle: On the Heavens i and ii. Warminster.
Lennox, J. G. (1999) “The place of mankind in Aristotle™s zoology,” Philosophical
Topics 27: 1“17.
(2001a) “Aristotle on the unity and disunity of science,” International Studies
in the Philosophy of Science 15: 133“43.
(2001b) Aristotle™s Philosophy of Biology. Studies in the Origins of Life Science.
Cambridge.
(2005) “The place of zoology in Aristotle™s natural philosophy,” in Philosophy
and the Sciences in Antiquity, ed. R. W. Sharples. Aldershot: 55“71.
and Gill, M. L. (eds.) (1994) Self-Motion. From Aristotle to Newton. Princeton,
NJ.
Leone, G. (1984) “Epicuro, Della natura, libro XIV,” Cronache Ercolanesi 18:
17“107.
Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Stuart
Jones and R. McKenzie. Oxford.
Lloyd, G. E. R. (1988) “The alleged fallacy of Hippocrates of Chios,” Apeiron 21:
103“27.
(1991) “Saving the appearances,” in G. E. R. Lloyd, Methods and Problems in
Greek Science. Cambridge: 248“77.
(1998a) “Heavenly aberrations: Aristotle the amateur astronomer,” in G. E. R.
Lloyd, Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge: 160“83.
(1998b) “Aspects of the relationships between Aristotle™s psychology and
zoology,” in G. E. R. Lloyd, Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge: 38“66.
Lorenz, H. (2001) “Animal locomotion in Aristotle,” paper presented at the
Berkeley Conference in Ancient Philosophy. Soon to be published in
H. Lorenz (2005) The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle.
Oxford.
Mansfeld, J. (1978) “Zeno of Citium,” Mnemosyne 31: 134“78.
`
Mansion, A. (1942) Introduction a la physique aristotelienne. Paris.
Matthen, M. (2001) “The holistic presuppositions of Aristotle™s cosmology,”
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 20: 171“99.
McKirahan, R. (1978) “Aristotle™s subordinate sciences,” British Journal for the
History of Science 11: 197“220.
(1992) Principles and Proofs. Aristotle™s Theory of Demonstrative Science.
Princeton, NJ.
Menn, S. (2003) “Aristotle™s de¬nition of soul and the programme of the De
anima,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 21: 83“139.
Modrak, D. K. (1987) “Aristotle on Thinking,” in Proceedings of the Boston
Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 2, ed. J. J. Clearly. New York:
209“36.
¨
Moraux, P. (1964) “Quinta Essentia,” in Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, rev. G. Wissowa, vol. xxiv. Stuttgart: 1171“263.
Bibliography
128
¨
(1967) “Xenarchus von Seleukia,” in Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft, rev. G. Wissowa, vol. ix. Stuttgart: 1420“35.
(1973) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. i. Berlin and New York.
(1984) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. ii. Berlin and New York.
and Sharples, R. W. (2001) Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. iii:
Alexander von Aphrodisias. Berlin and New York.
¨
Muller, I. (1982) “Aristotle and the quadrature of the circle,” in In¬nity and
Continuity in Ancient and Medieval Thought, ed. N. Kretzmann. Ithaca, NY
and London: 146“64.
et al. (forthcoming) Simplicius: Against Philoponus on the Eternity of the World.
Owen, G. E. L. (1986) “Tithenai ta phainomena,” in G. E. L. Owen, Logic,
Science and Dialectic. Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy. London: 239“51.
Pellegrin, P. (2000) “Physics,” in Greek Thought, A Guide to Classical Knowledge,
ed. J. Brunschwig and G. E. R. Lloyd, translated under the direction of
C. Porter. Cambridge, MA: 433“51.
(2003) “Aristote de Stagire: La Physique,” in Dictionnaire des philosophes
´
antiques, Supplement, ed. R. Goulet, J.-M. Flamand, and M. Aouad. Paris:
265“71.
and Crubellier, M. (2002) Aristote: le philosophe et les savoirs. Paris.
Pohlenz, M. (1965) Kleine Schriften. Hildesheim and New York.
Preus, A. (1975) Science and Philosophy in Aristotle™s Biological Works. Hildesheim
and New York.
Reinhardt, K. (1921) Poseidonios. Munich.
¨
(1926) Kosmos und Sympathie New Untersuchungen uber Poseidonius. Munich.
¨
(1935) “Poseidonios,” in Paulys Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswis-
senschaft, rev. G. Wissowa, vol. xxvii. Stuttgart: 558“826.
¨ ¨
Sachs, E. (1917) Die funft Platonischen Korper. Berlin.
Sambursky, S. (1956) The Physical World of the Greek. Princeton, NJ.
(1962) The Physical World of Late Antiquity. London.
Scho¬eld, M. (1972) “Metaph. Z 3: Some Suggestions”, Phronesis 17, 97“101.
Sedley, D. N. (1991) “Is Aristotle™s teleology anthropocentric?,” Phronesis 36:
179“97.
Sharples, R. W. (1983) “The unmoved mover and the motion of the heavens in
Alexander of Aphrodisias,” Apeiron 1: 62“63.
(1985a) “Ambiguity and opposition: Alexander of Aphrodisias: Ethical
Problems i 1,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 32: 109“16.
(1985b) “Theophrastus on the heavens,” in Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung,
ed. J. Wiesner, vol. i: Aristoteles und seine Schule. New York and Berlin:
577“93.
(1998) Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought, and
In¬‚uence. Commentary Volume 3.1. Sources in Physics. Leiden, Boston and
Cologne.
(1999) “The Peripatetic school,” in From Aristotle to Augustine, ed. D. Furley,
Routledge History of Philosophy, vol. ii. London and New York: 147“87.
Siorvanes, L. (1996) Proclus. Neo-platonic Philosophy and Science. Edinburgh.
Bibliography 129
Solmsen, S. (1960) Aristotle™s System of the Physical World. A Comparison with his
Predecessors. Ithaca, NY.
Sorabji, R. (1988) Matter, Space and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and their
Sequel. London.
´
Taran, L. (1975) Academica: Plato, Philip of Opus and the Pseudo-Platonic
Epinomis. Philadelphia.
´
(2001) “Aristotelianism in the ¬rst century B.C.,” in L. Taran, Collected
Papers. Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: 479“524.
Taub, L. (2003) Ancient Metereology. London.
Taylor, A. E. (1928) A Commentary on Plato™s Timaeus. Oxford.
´
Van den Bruwaene, M. (ed.) (1978) Ciceron: De natura deorum. Brussels.
Vlastos, G. (1975) Plato™s Universe. London.
Voll-Graff, W. (1949) “Elementum,” Mnemosyne 4: 89“115.
Ward, P. (1996) “Souls and ¬gures. De¬ning the soul in the De anima II 3,”
Ancient Philosophy 16: 113“28.
Waterlow, S. (1982) Nature, Change and Agency in Aristotle™s Physics. A
Philosophical Study. Oxford.
Wedin, M. V. (1988) Mind and Imagination. New Haven and London.
(1992) “Aristotle on the mechanics of thought,” in Essays in Ancient Greek
Philosophy, vol. v. Aristotle™s Ontology, ed. A. Preus and J. P. Anton. New
York: 243“71.
¨
Wehrli, F. (1983) Der Peripatos bis zum Beginn der romischen Keiserzeit,” in
¨
Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike 3: Altere
¨
Academie “ Aristoteles “ Peripatos, ed. F. Uberweg, K. Praechter, and H.
Flashar. Basel and Stuttgart: 461“599.
West, M. (1982) “Cosmology in the Greek tragedians,” in Balkan and Asia Minor
Studies. Tokyo: 1“13.
¨
Wieland, W. (1962) Die aristotelische Physik. Gottingen.
Wildberg, Ch. (1987) Philoponus: On Aristotle on the Eternity of the World.
London.
(1988) John Philoponus™s Criticism of Aristotle™s Theory of Aether. New York and
Berlin.
¨ ¨
(1993) “Simplicius und das Zitat. Zur Uberlieferung des Anfuhrungszeichnes,”
¨
in Symbolae Berolinenses fur D. Harl¬nger, ed. C. Berger, F. Brockmann,
G. De Gregorio, M. I. Ghisu, S. Kotzabassi, and N. Noack. Amsterdam:
187“98.
Index of names




Alcmeon of Croton, 103 Easterling, H. J., 114
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 19, 21, 22, 65, Effe, B., 72
Egli, F., 116
77, 80, 84, 92“3, 102, 107“8,
Eudemus of Rhodes, 48
114, 115
Anaxagoras, 3, 38, 111“12, 117 Euripides, 117
Anaximenes, 120 Eudoxus of Cnidus, 74, 75
Andronicus of Rhodes, 69“70, 114
Antiphon the Sophist, 27 Falcon, A., 14, 70, 80, 84
Anton, J. P., 104 Frede, M., 17, 89, 109
Apollodorus of Seleucia, 36, 53 Furley, D., 72, 88

Gaiser, K., 50
Balme, D., 88
Gigon, O., 72
Barnes, J., 4
Gill, M. L., 42, 109
Beere, J. B., 13
Goldstein, B. R., 100
Blank, D. L., 51
Gottschalk, H. B., 67
´
Bodnar, I., 11, 42, 84, 107
Grant, E., 62
Boethus of Sidon (Peripatetic philosopher),
Guariglia, O. N., 105
69“70
Guthrie, W. K. C., 77
Boethus of Sidon (Stoic philosopher), 37
Bogen, J., 104
Hahm, D., 114, 117
Bostock, D., 24
Hankinson, R. J., 63, 70
Broadie, S., 19, 76
Heinze, R., 81, 82
Brunschwig, J., 4
Heraclitus, 120
Burkert, W., 50
Herminus, 84
Burnyeat, M. F., 2, 8, 13, 17, 20
Hippocrates of Chios, 27
Byrne, P. H., 105
Jaeger, W., 77, 120
Cappelle, W., 3 Jouanna, J., 27, 103
Caston, V., 19 Judson, L., 84
Cleanthes, 120 Julianus of Tralles, 84
Charles, D., 102, 108
Charlton, W., 109 Kahn, C. H., 116
Chrysippus, 37, 118, 120 Kingsley, P., 116, 117
Code, A., 4, 7, 9, 21, 39, 41 Koller, K., 50
Cohen, S. M., 42 ¨
Kramer, K., 50

`
Democritus, 48, 56 Labarriere, J.-L., 94
Diels, H., 50 Lang, H. S., 1
Dillon, J., 77 Leggatt, S., 33
¨
During, I., 8 Lennox, J. G., 4, 5, 6, 19

130
Index of names 131
Leone, G., 47 Reinhardt, K., 36
Leucippus, 56 Rose, V., 72, 105
Lloyd, G. E. R., 18, 27, 100, 101 Ross, W. D., 72, 105
Lorenz, H., 97
Sambursky, S., 63
Scho¬eld, M., 109
Mansfeld, J., 52
Sedley, D. N., 13
Matthen, M., 13“14, 37
Sharples, R. W., 44, 60, 63, 84, 117
McKirahan, R., 14, 28
Simplicius, 29, 43, 44, 63“4, 65
Melissus, 26“8
Siorvanes, L., 47
Menn, S., 39
Sorabji, R., 108, 109
Modrak, D. K., 95
Strato of Lampsacus, 63, 68
Moraux, P., 62, 63, 72, 77, 84, 114
¨
Muller, I., 27
´
Taran, L., 77
Theaetetus, 78
Numenius, 80
Van den Bruwaene, M., 72
Owen, G. E. L., 100 Vlastos, G., 46
Voll-Graff, W., 50
Parmenides, 26“8
Patzig, G., 109 Walzer, R., 72
Pellegrin, P., 4 Ward, P., 92
Philip of Ophus, 77 Waterlow, S., 28, 41
Plotinus, 67“9, 85 Wedin, M. V., 17, 94, 95
West, M., 116
Plutarch of Athens, 102
Pohlenz, M., 36 Wildberg, Ch., 33, 62, 65
Posidonius, 36, 118
Preus, A., 88 Xenarchus of Seleucia, 63“4, 64“7, 67“9, 70
Proclus, 47 Xenocrates, 80“2
Protagoras, 27
Ptolemy, 67“8 Zeno of Citium, 52, 54, 118, 120
Index of passages




Achilles Tatius Aristotle
Isagoge A post.
77 a 25“35, 29
2.1, 71
Cat.
5, 115, 118
Alexander of Aphrodisias 1 b 8“19, 14
De Anima 6 a 17“18, 104
DA
1.1“3, 19
402 a 4“7, 17, 22
28.25“8, 92
402 b 3“9, 91
43.9, 114
403 a 8“10, 95
45.3, 114
De fato 412 a 13, 38
412 a 14“15, 38, 44
181.16“20, 77
De mixtione 412 a 17, 44
412 b 3, 39
223.10“11, 115
412 b 5“6, 39
229.6“9, 107
In Meteora 3.29 “ 4.1, 22 413 a 22, 90
In Metaph. 413 a 31“2, 19, 91
413 b 1“6, 96
22.2“3, 107
414 b 20“1, 92
169.18“19, 107
375.37 “ 376.1, 107 414 b 22, 24“5, 92
Mantissa 415 a 8“9, 18, 91
123.4 “ 126.23, 80 415 b 1“3, 74
Quaestiones 416 b 18, 39
I 1, 1.3.9, 114 416 b 34, 20
I 1, 3.14“15, 114 417 a 1“2, 8, 95
I 1, 4.1“2, 114 423 b 29, 8
I 10, 20.10, 114 428 a 8“11, 97
I 10, 20.31“2, 107 428 b 30 “ 429 a 2, 94
I 10, 21.7, 114 429 a 18, 21
I 25, 40.10, 114 429 a 22, 96
II 3, 47.30, 114 429 b 13, 95
III 12, 106.271, 114 429 b 20“1, 95
Ambrose 431 a 16“17, 95
Exameron 431 b 2, 95
I 6.23, 71 432 a 8“10, 95
Aristophanes 432 a 15“16, 88
Aves 432 b 12“14, 95
432 b 14, 93
1001“5, 27
Nubes 432 b 15“16, 94
432 b 21, 88
225“5, 3
432 b 25, 93
358“60, 3

132
Index of passages 133
432 b 26, 96 302 b 2“5, 116
433 a 4“5, 97 300 b 8“10, 55
433 a 15, 94 305 b 26 “ 306 a 1, 47
434 a 31, 88 306 a 23“6, 46
433 b 27“30, 97 306 a 26 “ b 2, 48
DC 306 a 30 “ b 7, 82
268 a 1“6, 31, 42 307 a 16“17, 48
268 a 4“6, 43 310 a 3, 66“7
268 a 6“7, 31 310 a 33“4, 66
268 a 7“10, 32 311 a 17“18, 41
EE
268 a 10“13, 33
268 a 13“15, 33 1216 a 12“14, 1
GA
268 a 15“19, 33
268 b 5, 33 715 a 4“6, 7
268 b 5“8, 34 716 a 11, 6
268 b 8“10, 35 731 a 30 “ b 5, 5
269 a 2“9, 57“9 735 a 21, 9
269 a 9“18, 59“60 739 b 19, 88
269 a 32 “ b 2, 61 741 b 4, 88
269 b 13“16, 115 744 a 37“8, 88
269 b 24“5, 41 783 b 20, 6
269 b 31, 119 GC
270 a 12“15, 106 314 a 28 “ b 1, 117
270 a 33, 119 316 a 14“16, 45
270 b 3, 115 324 a 34“5, 10
270 b 11, 115 324 b 5“6, 10
270 b 20“1, 10, 116 324 b 6, 10
270 b 20“3, 118 324 b 19, 10
270 b 22, 115 333 b 7, 9
270 b 24“5, 116 334 b 30“1, 80
271 a 20“2, 106 335 a 28“9, 15
271 a 33, 88 336 a 14“18, 11
271 b 1“17, 45 336 b 27“8, 88
279 b 3, 119 337 a 1“7, 11
284 b 21“4, 40 IA
285 b 19“20, 97 704 b 15, 88
286 a 4“7, 86 705 a 27 “ b 2, 39
286 a 12, 119 705 b 30 “ 706 a 26, 40
286 b 7, 119 705 b 7“8, 39
287 b 24“7, 98 708 a 9“10, 88
287 b 28 “ 288 a 2, 98, 101 711 a 19, 88
Metaph.
288 a 2“3, 88
Gamma
289 b 5, 100
291 b 13“14, 88 1004 a 2, 105
291 b 24“8, 99, 101 1005 a 34, 14
Delta
291 b 29“31, 74, 99
291 b 32, 115 1018 a 27“8, 104
292 a 10“14, 13, 74, 99 1021 b 31“3, 33
292 a 14“17, 85 1021 b 32 “ 1022 a 1, 33
292 a 18“20, 74 Epsilon
292 a 18“22, 74, 90 1025 b 7“8, 14
292 a 20“2, 74 1025 b 18“21, 14, 15
297 a 4, 100 1026 a 5“6, 21
298 b 2“4, 44 1026 a 6, 21
302 a 31 “ b 2, 117 1026 a 18“19, 28
Index of passages
134
Aristotle (cont.) 641 a 29“30, 5
Zeta 641 a 33“4, 5, 19
1028 b 8“9, 115 641 b 5“6, 20
1028 b 8“13, 42 641 b 9“10, 19
1029 a 12“16, 109 641 b 11, 5
1029 a 16“19, 109 644 b 16, 5
1029 a 18“19, 109 644 b 23“32, 85“6, 101
1032 a 20“1, 10 644 b 32 “ 645 a 7, 8
1032 a 25, 9 645 a 3, 8
1033 b 32, 9 645 a 3“4, 8
Eta 645 a 4“5, 8
1042 b 5“6, 106 645 a 4“7, 7, 100
Theta 645 a 5, 8
1048 b 37 “ 1049 a 1, 9 645 a 5“6, 5
1049 b 25, 9 645 b 9“11, 8
Iota 646 a 15, 8
1054 a 30, 105 646 a 33, 9
1055 a 4“5, 104 658 a 8, 88
1055 a 27“8, 104 658 a 23, 88
Lambda 661 b 24, 88
1069 a 14“15, 10 687 a 16“17, 88
1069 a 30“3, 88“9 691 b 4“5, 88
1069 b 3, 102 694 a 15, 88
1069 b 4“5, 102 695 b 19“20, 88
1069 b 6“7, 102 Phys.
1069 b 8“9, 102 184 a 14“16, 23
1069 b 14“15, 105 184 b 25 “ 185 a 1, 26
1069 b 24“6, 108 185 a 2“3, 28
1069 b 26, 106 185 a 8, 26, 27
1069 b 33“4, 105 185 a 9“10, 27
1070 a 8, 9 185 a 17, 27
1070 b 34, 9 185 a 18“19, 26
1071 a 11“17, 9 185 a 19, 26
1071 b 31“4, 56 187 a 28“9, 24
Nu 188 a 22“4, 104
1092 a 16, 9 188 a 26“30, 25
Meteor. 189 b 27, 105
338 a 20 “ 339 a 9, 2“3 189 b 31“2, 25
338 b 2, 50, 115 190 a 31, 26
339 a 21“2, 30 192 a 21, 108
339 b 16“17, 50, 115 192 b 2“4, 24
340 b 11, 115 193 a 4“9, 28
355 a 14, 120 193 a 11, 108
369 b 21“31, 116 193 b 8, 9
NE 194 a 13, 30
1109 b 35 “ 1110 a 1, 76 194 b 13, 9
1110 a 1“4, 76 198 a 22“3, 15, 29
PA 198 a 22“31, 29
639 a 12, 5 198 a 26, 9
639 b 8“10, 7 199 a 27“9, 39
639 b 15 “ 640 b 5, 7 202 a 11, 9
640 a 2, 5 209 a 4“5, 32
640 a 9“10, 8 212 b 20“2, 117
640 a 25, 9 255 a 29“30, 67
640 b 5 “ 641 a 17, 7 260 a 22“3, 88
Index of passages 135
PN iii 37, 77
436 a 1“6, 22 v 32, 71, 113
442 b 25, 6 v 21, 105
467 a 33“4, 39 vii 135, 53
467 b 2, 39 vii 143, 36
467 b 4, 6 vii 150, 38
468 a 4“12, 39 ix 9, 120
468 a 9“11, 39
Epiphanius
468 a 31, 6
Adversus haereses
468 a 4“12, 39
469 a 27“8, 88 iii 31, 121
Euripides
476 a 13, 88
Troades
Pol.
1256 b 15“22, 13 1079“80, 117
Rhet.
[Galen]
1354 a 1“6, 28
Historia philosopha
SE
165 a 38 “ b 8, 27 18, 71, 119
Top. 23, 52
123 b 1“37, 104 54, 113
Geminus
[Aristotle]
Elementa astronomiae
De mundo
392 a 5“9, 118 1.19“22, 100
Arnobius
Hippocrates
Adversus nationes
De arte
ii 9, 113
i 1.1, 27
Athenagoras
De ¬‚atibus
Legatio pro Christianis
i, 4.10“11, 103
64.25“30, 71
iii, 3, 119
De natura hominis
Basil
iv 172.15 “ 174.4, 103
¨
Hexaemeron
VT
i 11, 71
i 3.7, 3
i 3.8“10, 3
Cicero
xiv 4.16, 103
Academica
xx 1.1“7, 24
i 7, 26, 113
Hippolytus
i 39, 52
Refutatio omnium haeresium
De ¬nibus bonorum et malorum
i 7, 120
iv 5.12, 113
i 20.4, 71
De natura deorum
vii 19.3“4, 71, 113
i 33, 117
Homer
ii 40, 120
Iliad
ii 41, 117
xiv 288, 116
ii 44, 72
Tusculanae disputationes [Iustinus]
i 10, 113 Cohortatio ad graecos
i 17, 113 5.2.15“20, 71
i 22, 113
Nemesius
i 41, 113
[Clement] De natura hominis
Recognitiones viii 15, 113 5.165, 71
Diogenes Laertius Olympiodorus
Vitae philosophorum In Meteora
ii 12, 111, 112 2.14“16, 113
Index of passages
136
Olympiodorus (cont.) 40 b, 90
48 b 7 “ c 1, 50“1
2.19, 113
2.29“30, 113 53 c 4“5, 45
53 c 5“6, 32, 45
[Philo] 54 b 4“5, 45
De aeternitate mundi 55 a 7, 45
78“80, 37 55 c 4“6, 78
Philoponus 56 d 7, 45
In Meteora 56 e 6, 45
3.37, 113 57 c 7“8, 45
5.9“10, 113 58 c 5“7, 79
5.13, 113 77 a, 6
9.31, 113 77 b 1“2, 6
9.33, 113 82 a“b, 103
14.32, 113 90 e 1“3, 8
14.37, 113 92 c, 90
[Plato]
31.29, 113
Epinomis
58.8“9, 113
97.20“2, 62 981 b 3“4, 79
In DA 981 c 5“8, 79
595.37 “ 598.24, 102 981 c 8 “ d 5, 79, 81
In GC 984 b 4 “ e 5, 81
984 b 6 “ c 2, 81
210.12“16, 47
Plato 984 d 8 “ e 5, 81
Cratilus 984 e 1, 81
410 b 6“7, 118 985 b 1“4, 81
Laws 985 b 4 “ c 1, 81
Plotinus
897 b“c, 91
Enneads
899 a, 91
899 a“b, 91 ii 1.2.12“13, 113
Phaedo ii 1.6.1“21, 80
70 d 7 “ 71 a 10, 103 ii 2.1.14“19, 68
Phaedrus ii 2.1.19“23, 69
269 g “ 272 b, 3 ii 2.1.23“4, 69
Philebus ii 2.1.24“5, 69
17 a “ 18 d, 48 ii 2.1.27“9, 69
Timaeus ii 2.1.37“9, 69
28 b 7 “ c 2, 79 Plutarch
De defectu oraculorum
29 b, 90
29 c 4 “ d 3, 101 12, 81
30 b, 6 28, 37
De Iside et Osiride
30 b 6“7, 35
30 a 5, 36 360 d“f, 82
De Stoicorum repugnantiis
30 c 2 “ d 4, 36
30 c 4, 36 41, 120
Lysander
30 c 5, 36
30 d, 90 12, 111
31 b “ 32 c, [Plutarch]
Placita
79“80
32 d, 90 878 b 8“9, 70, 113, 115
881 e 10 “ f 7, 70,
33 b, 90
39 a, 6, 91 113, 115
39 b, 91 882 f 4, 51
39 b 4, 94 887 e 3“4, 51
39 d 8, 94 887 d 7“11, 70, 115
39 e, 6 888 b 10“11, 70
Index of passages 137
Proclus 573.3“11, 47
Hypotyposis astronomicarum positionum 577.17“19, 47
4.7, 100 648.19“28, 47
In Rempublicam In Phys.
ii 48.4“27, 82 7.10“15, 48, 50
In Timaeum 155.21“30, 38
ii 11.24“31, 68 164.17“20, 38
164.26 “ 165.1, 38
ii 42.9“12, 63
ii 43.20 “ 44.18, 80 363.6“7, 29
iii 9.4“5, 80 1165.35“9, 82, 90
iii 279.2“3, 47 1219.3“7, 84
[Simplicius]
iv 113.30“1, 68
In DA
Sextus Empiricus 1.23 “ 3.28, 17
M 3.21 “ 4.11, 92
320.17 “ 321.2, 102
i 21, 51
Stobaeus
i 27, 82
Eclogae
ix 78, 36
ix 81“4, 36 i 10, 46
ix 226, 51 i 23.10“15, 111
ix 316, 71 i 37.16“18, 70, 113, 115
ix 332, 36 i 128.4“9, 70, 113, 115
i 129.1 “ 130.20, 50
x 240, 51
x 249“50, 49 i 140.15, 51
x 316, 113 i 142.2“7, 38
PH i 195.20 “ 196.2, 70, 115
iii 30“2, 119 i 196.5“16, 70
iii 31, 71 i 196.11“12, 115
iii 37, 53 i 200.21“2, 19, 63
iii 38, 51 i 200.25, 70
iii 39, 52 i 206.7“8, 63
iii 126, 51 i 206.19“24, 119
iii 152, 51 i 209.5“10, 121
iii 316, 113 i 212.25“7, 113
Simplicius i 214.1“3, 118
In DC i 219.19“25, 118
6.34 “ 7.3, 44 Strabo
Geographica
7.20“8, 43
xiv 5.4.8 (670), 63
12.22“6, 82, 90
13.22, 63, 113
20.10“15, 67
Theodoretus
20.12, 63, 113
Graecarum affectionum curatio
20.23“5, 68
iv 12, 71
21.33, 63, 113
iv 18, 71
21.35 “ 22.17, 67“9
iv 21, 71
26.31“3, 64
Theo Smyrnaeus
34.14“19, 62
Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum
42.19“20, 64
Platonem utilium
112.2, 116
177.9ff, 100
156.25 “ 201.10, 107
380.1“3, 84
Xenophon
380.3“5, 84
380.29 “ 381.2, 84 Memorabilia
488.3“24, 100 i 1.1.13“14, 111
563.26 “ 564.3, 47 iv 7.6“7, 112
General index




This is a selective index and is intended to supplement the Index of names and the Index of passages

aither dimension
¯
aither and aer, 116 as diastasis, 32
¯ ¯
aither and ¬re, 116“17 as diastema, 32
¯ ¯
in Aristotle, 10, 79, 115“17 discontinuity between the celestial and the
in the Epinomis, 78“82 sublunary world, 87“9, 119“21
in the doxography, 115
in the Stoics, 118“19, 120 element
elements, 48“51
body ¬fth element, 10, 113“14
aetherial body, 115“17 ¬rst element, 50“1, 114“15
arguments for the existence of a celestial
simple body, 57“62 Heraclitus
bodies, 42“3 Aristotle and Heraclitus on celestial
bodies and elements, 48“51 nourishment, 119“21
bodies and magnitudes, 31“6, 42, 44“5
body and antitupia, 52 intellegibility, lack of, 109“12
divine body, 114
¬fth body, 10, 113“14 matter
¬fth body in antiquity, 70“1 Alexander of Aphrodisias on celestial matter,
¬fth body in the Epinomis, 77“83 107“8
¬rst body, 114“15 celestial matter, 101“9
meteora, 3
living bodies, 38“40 ¯
Anaxagoras and ta meteora, 111“12
mathematical bodies versus natural bodies ¯
(soma versus sterea), 37“40, 52“4 meteorology
¯
Stoic and Epicurean conceptions of body, before Aristotle, 3
meteorology versus metarsiology, 3
51“4
sublunary simple bodies, 41“2 motion
circular motion and contrariety, 106“7
contrariety circular motion versus celestial motion,
circular motion and contrariety, 106“7 83“4
for one thing there is one contrary at most, natural versus forced motion, 61“2
natural versus non-natural motion, 56“7,
60“2
language and theory of contrariety, 25, 61“2, 71“7
supernatural motion, 62
102“5
cosmos voluntary versus non-voluntary
cosmos as a causal system, 11“13 motion, 72
cosmos as a system of bodies, 44“5
cosmos as a teleological system, 13 Parmenides and Melissus, Aristotle™s criticism
cosmos as a uni¬ed whole, 10“11, 35“6, 37 of, 26“8

138
General index 139
phainomenon, 98“9, 99“100 Stoicism
phainomenon versus phainomena, 100“1 aither, 118“19, 120
¯
Plato all versus whole, 36
aither, 118 body, 54
¯
bodies and regular polyhedra, 45“6 uni¬ed bodies, 36“7
body, 32, 45
contraries, 103 unity
demonology, 81“2 causal unity, 14
elementary triangles, 46“8 material unity, 15“16
elements, 48“9 methodological unity, 15
minimal thickness (hypothesis), 47
sensible world, 35“6 Xenarchus, 63
Xenarchus as a Peripatetic philosopher, 69“70
remoteness, 85“7 Xenarchus and Philoponus, 63“4
conceptual versus geographical remoteness, Xenarchus and Plotinus, 67“9
Xenarchus and Simplicius, 63“4, 65
86“7
Xenarchus™ critique of Aristotle™s doctrine of
substance natural motion, 64“7
eternal and perishable sensible substances,
zoia, 6, 17“18, 82, 90“2
¯
88“9
zoion, 6, 90“1
¬fth substance, 113“14 ¯
zoia versus zonta, 6, 17“18
¬rst substance, 114“15 ¯ ¯
stars as zoia, 91
substances and bodies, 42 ¯

<<

. 5
( 5)