Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources (Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities) [1 ed.] 1560003286, 9781560003281

Citation preview

THEOPHRASTUS

Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities Series Editor:

William W. Fortenbaugh

Advisory Board: Dimitri Gutas Pamula M. Huby Eckart Schütrumpf Robert W. Sharples

On Stoic and Peripatetic Ethics: The Work of Arius Didymus, volume I Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work, volume II Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Phys­ ics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric, volume III Ciceros Knowledge of the Peripatos, volume IV Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings, volume V Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle, volume VI The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transfor­ mation of Classical Traditions presented to Profes­ sor I.G. Kidd, volume VII Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, volume VIII

Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities

Volume VIII

THEOPHRASTUS

Reappraising the Sources

Edited by

Ja hannes M. van Ophuijsen Marlein van Raalte

~~ ~~o~I~~n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published 1998 by Transcation Publishers Published 2019 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright© 1998 Taylor & Francis AU rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 97-29416 ISSN: 0732-9814 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Theophrastus : reappraising the sources 1 edited by Johannes M. van Ophuijsen and Marlein van Raalte. p. cm. - (Rutgers University studies in classical humanities, ISSN 0732-9814 ; v. 8) English, French, and ltalian. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 1-56000-328-6 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Theophrastus. I. Ophuijsen, J. M. van, 1953­ . II. Raalte, Marlein van, 1952­ III. Series. B626.T34T47 1997 185--dc21 97-29416 CIP ISBN 13: 978-1-56000-328-1 (hbk)

Contents Preface

vii

Contributors

ix

1. A Life in Fragments: The Vita Theophrasti Jprgen Mejer 2. Qualche aspetto della vita di Teofrasto e il Liceo dopo Aristotele Tiziano Dorandi 3. Theophrastus' Logic Mario Mignucci 4. Theophrastus' Rhetorical Works: One Rhetorical Fragment the Less, One Logical Fragment the More Dirk M. Schenkeveld 5. Theophrastus in the Tradition of Greek Casuistry Trevor Saunders 6. Theophrastus on the Nature of Music (716 FHS&G) C.M.J. Sicking 7. Le début d'une physique: Ordre, extension et nature des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste André Laks 8. Philoponus on Theophrastus on Composition in Nature Frans de Haas 9. Problèmes de composition et de classification dans l'Historia plantarum de Théophraste Suzanne Amigues 10. Is Theophrastus a Significant Philosopher? Richard Sorabji 11. L' originalità della posizione teofrastea nel contesto del pensiero animalistico aristotelico e della fisiognomica zoo-etica tra Peripato, Stoa e loro critici Antonio M. Battegazzore 12. Theophrastus as Philosopher and Aristotelian Robert W. Sharples 13. Theophrastus and the Peripatos Hans B. Gottschalk 14. Theophrastus, the Academy, and the Athenian Philosophical Atmosphere John Glucker v

1 29 39 67 81 97 143 171 191 203

223 267 281 299

vi

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

15. Theophrastus, the Academy, Antiochus and Cicero: A Response (to John Glucker) and an Appendix Woldemar Gor/er 16. Theophrastus and Epicurean Physics David Sedley 17. Theophrastus and the Stoa A. A. Long

331

Index of Ancient Sources

385

Index of Subjects

405

317

355

Preface What' s new in Ancient Philosophy? At the time of the biennial confer­ ence of Project Theophrastus held in Leiden, July 1993, the edition of Sources for Theophrastus (FHS&G, 1992) was less than a year old. The essays in the present volume are largely the materialisation of the papers presented and discussions occurring during that conference, centering on the question: "Do the new fragments add up to a new whole?" A company of scholars set themselves the task of reappraising the sources, most of them friends in a special sense through ties forged by Project Theophrastus, but at the same time representing a wide enough range of views on the achievements of their author to guarantee the sparks of intellectual fire required for progress in the Humanities. In conformity with the theme of the conference, most of the articles in this volume are concerned in sorne way with the question what is Theophrastus' own contribution to the various areas of study cultivated in the Peripatos. It is agreed that Theophrastus develops his views on philosophy and science in close connection with those of his teacher Aristotle. But to what extent and in what respect can his work be said to mark an advance on that of his predecessor? And what is the philosophi­ cal motivation behind his activity? Is he filling in gaps and working away at what is still a basically Aristotelian structure? Is he a systematic mind aiming to impose sorne sort of coherence and consistency on a growing body of positive knowledge? Or do we have a foreshadowing of the dissolution of Peripatetic thought into various more loosely con­ nected disciplines? Or are we rather facing a problem-oriented, even an aporetic thinker? And what (new) light do the Sources cast on Theophrastus' intellectual position in relation to the Stoa of Zeno and the Garden of Epicurus as weil as to the contemporary Academy and even to the Peripatos as represented by the colleagues, pupils and suc­ cessors of Theophrastus? The answers provided in this volume are diverse and ground-break­ ing. There will be further discussion both in the commentaries to the Sources (in nine volumes) and in independent monographs. In particu­ lar, we can expect new insights and new controversies as scholars con­ vii

viii

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

front the texts collected in Sources with the two Theophrastean treatises on botany (represented here by the paper of Mme Amigues) and the several scientific Opuscula. If one feels that all this is merely multiply­ ing questions: there is nothing new about that, certainly not in Ancient Philosophy. March 1996 JMvO MvR

Contributors Suzanne AMIGUES, Université Paul Valéry, Montpellier III, Route de Mende, 34199 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France. Antonio M. BATTEGAZZORE, Università di Genova, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Via Balbi 4, 16126 Genova. Tiziano DoRANDI, UPR 76, CNRS, 7 rue G. Moquet, BP 8, F-94801 Villejuif Cedex, France. John GLUCKER, Tel-Aviv University, Dept. ofClassics, Gilman Building, Ramat-Aviv 69978, Israel. Woldemar GôRLER, Universitat des Saarlandes, Institut für Klassische Philologie, Postfach 151150 D-66041 Saarbrücken, Germany. Hans B. GoTTSCHALK, University of Leeds, Dept. of Greek and Latin, Leeds LS2 9JT, England. Frans DE HAAS, Universiteit Utrecht, Faculteit Wysbejeerle, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, Netherlands. André LAKS, Centre de Recherche Philologique, URA 0992-CNRS, Université Charles de Gaulle- Lille III, BP 149, 59653 Villeneuve d' Ascq Cedex, France. A.A. LoNG, University of California, Berkeley, Dept. of Classics, Dwinelle Hall, Berkeley, Califomia 94720, USA. J!Zirgen MEJER, K!Zibenhavns Universitet, Institut for Graesk og Latin, Njalsgade 92, DK 2300 K!Zibenhavn, Denmark. Mario MIGNUCCI, Via Euganea 9, 35141 Padova, ltaly. Trevor SAUNDERS, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Dept. of Clas­ sics, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England. Dirk M. ScHENKEVELD, H. Heijermanslaan 23, 2106 ER Heemstede, N eth­ erlands. David SEDLEY, Christ's College, Cambridge CB2 3BU, England. Robert W. SHARPLES, University College London, Dept. of Greek and Latin, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England. C. M. J. SICKING, Universiteit Leiden, Vakgroep Griekse en Latijnse Talen en Culturen, Doelensteeg 16, 2311 VL Leiden, Netherlands. Richard SoRABJI, King's College London, Dept. of Philosophy, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, England. ix

1 A Life in Fragments:

The Vita Theophrasti

]ÇJrgen Mejer 1. The New Collection of Sources A new collection of Theophrastean materials was long overdue. The old Wimmer edition of 1854-62 1 contained a mere 190 fragments­ including sorne of the shorter treatises. 2 Wimmer's collection offers only two texts from Latin sources and no Arabie texts, nor does it offer any testimonia about Theophrastus' life. The new collection3 contains texts divided into 741 numbers, of which 67 regard Theophrastus' life and work; sorne of the numbered items even provide different versions that are supposed to derive from the same original. 4 This number does 1 F. Wimmer, Theophrasti Eresii opera quae supersunt omnia, Vols. 1 and 2 (Leipzig 1854), Vol. 3 (Leipzig 1862; repr. Frankfurt a. M. 1964); repr. with Latin translation, Paris 1866 (with later reissues). 2 Deperditorum scriptorum excerpta et fragmenta, (1866) 321-462. 3 Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, ed. William W. Fortenbaugh, Pamela M. Huby, Robert W. Sharples (Greek and Latin) and Dimitri Gu tas (Arabie), 2 Vols. (Lei den 1992). (Hereafter: "Sources.") 4 E.g. Physics, Doxography on Nature: 227A Simplicius, ln Phys. 1.2; 227B Diogenes Laertius 8.55; 227C Alex. Aphr. ln Met. 1.3. In addition, the Appendices

1

2

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

not include Opuscula transmitted from antiquity by continuous manu­ script tradition. On the other band, the new collection includes a num­ ber of texts otherwise not available in modern editions, in particular the Arabie sources. The discrepancy between the number of fragments in Wimmer and that of the texts in Sources is also due to the fact that Wimmer's ambition apparently was to collect only what he considered genuine fragments or close to verbatim reports. The new collection has given up the distinction between fragments verbis expressis and testimonia; the numbered fragments in Sources include texts, whether direct quotations, paraphrases, or reports, that give information about the thought of Theophrastus and the content of his writings. 5 The new collection has both a critical apparatus and an apparatus testimoniorum. The text is up to date, 6 and in sorne cases it has been improved by new readings. The introduction offers a lucid account of the principles according to which sources have been edited. The index fonriwn is very useful and complete. It is regrettable that we have to wait for (full) indices verborum et nominum until all eleven volumes have been published. As we now have this comprehensive collection of sources, we can begin to reconsider the significance of Theophrastus' work. We also have a translation accompanying all these texts. Sorne may think that it is just another sign of the decline of classical studies that the original texts are not allowed to stand alone, 7 but it will be realized that a trans­ lation also provides an interpretation of the text, and may account for the choice of a particular MS reading or ponctuation. On the other hand, the editors' practice of translating their own English texts into Latin and (Vol. I, 460-65; Vol. II, 600-17) offer materia1 in which Theophrastus is not men­ tioned explicitly, but which has been attributed to Theophrastus with sorne plausibilty. 5 Cf. H. B. Gottschalk, "Prolegomena to an Edition of Theophrastus' Fragments," Aristoteles, Werk und Wirkwzg: Paul Moraux gewidmet, ed. J. Wiesner, Vol. 1, 543-56 (Berlin 1985). This paper is important not just for editing Theophrastus, but for any collection of fragments, of phi1osophical fragments in particular. Sources seems to adhere to Gottscha1k's principles, except that the editors do not adopt his proposai to use signs to indicate the degree of proximity of alternative versions to the copy-text in the apparatus testimoniorum (553), and that it does give translations, in spite of Gottschalk's objections (556). 6 In sorne cases a new edition of a text was published too la te to be used in Sources (e.g. Gaiser's and Dorandi's editions of Philodemus, or Keaney's of Harpocration); this can be easily made up for in the forthcoming commentary. 7 Though also Wimmer added a Latin translation when he reissued his collection (above, n. 1).

A Life in Fragments

3

placing these Neo-Latin contributions on the left-hand pages among the original Greek, Latin and Arabie texts (apparently for reasons of sym­ metry) seems to be questionable. A very useful feature of this collection is the discussion of the titles of Theophrastus' works at the beginning of each section; this gives the reader all the available evidence for each title and for the assignment of fragments to the work in question, with cross-references to the relevant fragments (e.g. 137 FHS&G: List of titles referring to works on Physics). And even if we cannot always identify the particular Theophrastean passages it is certainly a good idea to give the reader a list of the books of the Eider Pliny's Naturalis Historia in which Pliny claims that he has used Theophrastus as a source (138 FHS&G). On the whole, the way the new collection brings together the full evidence for Theophrastus' work and shows its signifi­ cance is impressive. Furthermore, the nine volumes of commentary promised by the edi­ tors8 will give us a major tool in dealing with and understanding the individual fragments. These volumes will also throw light on Theophrastus' contributions to philosophy and to science in general, and give a survey of modern scholarship on the various topics that Theophrastus dealt with. "Do the new fragments add up to a new whole?" is a relevant ques­ tion, for the increase of the number of texts available does not necessar­ ily imply an increase of our knowledge ofTheophrastus and his scholar­ ship-although the numerous texts presented in Sources make us imme­ diate! y more aware of Theophrastus' influence on later authors and make the perception of him through the ages more obvious. It is doubt­ ful, for instance, that we learn more about Theophrastus' scholarship by reading Heliodorus' poem of uncertain date (139 FHS&G); neverthe­ less it testifies to the esteem in which Theophrastus was held in late antiquity, 9 and the cross-references to other fragments offered in the ap­ 8 The first volume of the commentaries (Commentary Vol. 5) has aire ad y appeared: R. W. Sharples, Sources on Biology ( Hwnan Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany: Texts 328--435) (Lei den 1995). 9 The editors, following the latest edition of the text by Goldschmidt (1923), date Heliodorus to the 8th century AD (Index, II.664 ). His poe rn On the Mystic Art of the Philosopher-meaning alchemy-is dedicated to an Emperor Theodosius, either II (408-50), cf. Schmid-Stahlin 2.1067 n. 2, or III (715-17), as the present editors as­ sume. Cf. a Iso H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantinischen Zeit 1 (München 1978) [HdAW 12.5.2]280.

4

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

paratus show that the words which are put into Theophrastus' mouth in the poem are not totally random-indicating that even authors outside the philosophical schools in late antiquity must have bad sorne knowl­ edge of Theophrastus. The extent to which the new collection does add up to a new whole may be illustrated by a comparison of the section on Theophrastus' physics in the old and the new editions. In Wimmer we find Theophrastus' Metaphysics (Fr. 12) followed by 43 fragments dealing with physics and doxography. In sorne cases a fragment is explicitly ascribed to a particular work by Theophrastus, in other cases no such reference is given. Wimmer clearly structures his collection so that it reflects his own idea about Theophrastus' thinking: Frr. 13 and 14 (= 301B, 252B FHS&G) deal with the role of sensation and the notion of God, while Fr. 15 dealing with the principles of contraries is taken from Theophrastus' Tapies (= 127 A FHS&G); Fr. 16 (= 176 FHS&G) dealing with the creation of things derives from the third book of the Physics "or On Heaven." Then follow Frr. 17-19 (= 144B, 143, 153C FHS&G) from Physics 1 on principles and movement, three fragments from book 2 and 3 of On Movement (20 = 153B FHS&G), also about movement, three fragments on place (Frr. 21-23 = 146, 149, 153A FHS&G; Wimmer Fr. 22b is only referred to in the apparatus to 147 FHS&G which offers a better version of the same statement, but not found in Wimmer), while four more fragments from On Movement (Frr. 24-26b = 152, 156B, 156A, 155C FHS&G) deal with various aspects of the concept of motion. Fr. 27 (= 301A FHS&G) deals with sense-criteria, Frr. 28-30 (= 241A, 241B, 184 FHS&G) with the creation of the world; Frr. 31-55 contain various doxographica, sorne dealing with tapies al­ ready mentioned, sorne taken from books already referred to. Turning now to the new collection, the different ordering of frag­ ments, as indicated by the equations above, announces a major differ­ ence. This section, called "Physics," has the following subdivisions (subsequent to introductory matters): Principles of Natural Science, Place, Time, Motion and Change, Heavenly Region, Sublunary Region: Elements and Principles, The Eternity of the Universe-then the more specifie sublunar tapies (Meteorology, Earthquakes and Volcanoes, Metals, Stones, Waters, Salt and Soda) and finally Doxography on Na­ ture (corresponding to Wimmer 31-55, cf. below). Though the editors, as Wimmer did, rightly have decided against an ordering strictly accord­

A Life in Fragments

5

ing to known titles, 10 the information given at the beginning of the sec­ tion gives a clear synopsis of the extent to which the content of indi­ vidual works can be reconstructed, and they generally give the frag­ ments of each work in the order indicated by the book numbers as re­ ferred to by the sources. The new collection seems at first sight to offer the same number of fragments as Wimmer, but in fact the 43 numbers dealing with physics in general offer 56 different texts, severa! of which are absent from Wimmer. Now, if we look just at the first fragments concerning physics, th ose on the general principles (142-45 FHG&S) and on place (146-49 FHG&S), it becomes even more evident that the texts which have been added as well as the extended context which Sources offer, JI demon­ strate how Theophrastus in his Physics engaged in a discussion with Aristotle, filling out gaps in the Aristotelian presentation and stating his own views on a number of points. The new collection confirms the re­ mark by Wehrli: "Anderseits bringt die aporetische Darstellungsform wiederholt Zweifel an den spekulativen Elementen der Vorlagen zum Ausdruck, was der empirischen Gesamttendenz von [Theophrasts] Naturlehre entspticht."J 2 I am convinced that Sources will confirm that Theophrastus, in this as in other areas, is a philosopher well worth drag­ ging out of Aristotle' s shadow, and that this new collection of fragments in fact will force us to do so. A much more complicated question is raised by the new arrangement of the fragments in the section called "Doxographica ph ysica" (224-45 FHS&G). lt is certainly an improvement on the arrangement in Wimmer's edition, but is it also an improvement on Diels' arrangement in Doxographi Graeci 475-95? Diels printed the fragments basically in the order of Hermann Usener (Analecta Theophrastea [Leipzig 1858]) Introduction (7-8) and compare Gottschalk 1985 (n. 5 above). significance of the context is often neglected in collections and interpreta­ tions of fragments; this is a problem scholars have come to deal with seriously on! y recent! y, cf. Gottschalk 1985, 551; for two stimulating studies on particular sources, see C. Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy. Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics (London 1987) and J. Mansfeld, Heresiography in Context. Hippolytus' Elenchus os a Source for Greek Philosophy (Leiden 1992) [Philosophia Antiqua 56]. -Cf. also below, n. 53. J 2 F. Wehrli in Die Philosophie der Antike, Band 3: Altere Akodemie. Aristoteles­ Peripatos, ed. H. Flashar, 480 (Base! and Stuttgart 1983). JO Cf. 11 The

6

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

"non quo omnia eum recte ordinasse credam sed quia putidum duco in leviculis vel dubiis ab egregio exemplari recedere" (Doxogr. Gr. 104). Thus, the fragments as printed in Doxogr. Gr. must be read with Die1s' discussion of the nature of Theophrastus' doxographical work in mind.U Whi1e Diels was convinced that Theophrastus' Opiniones physicae 14 was the source of ali the fragments despite the different tit1es under which they are quoted in our sources, the synopsis of titles in 137.5-8 FHS&G demonstrates that this is far from certain. 15 Neverthe­ less, in Sources the doxographical fragments are placed in one section, and one may ask: Is this justified? When we look at the Corpus Aristotelicum or at various ancient prose authors, it is clear that it was not uncommon to repeat, more or less verbatim, particular phrases or longer passages in different contexts. 16 It seems fair enough, then, to print ali these fragments together because they in any case give an over­ all impression of Theophrastus' view of his predecessors, even if sorne of these texts belong elsewhereY Asto the structure of Theophrastus'

13

Doxogr. Gr. 102-13. This is likely to be the correct interpretation of the tille IlE pl ucruc&v ooÇ&v, as shown by J. Mansfeld, "Doxography and Dialectic. The Sitz im Le ben of the 'Placita,"' in ANRW 11.36.4, eds. H. Temporini and W. Haase (Berlin and New York 1990) 3056­ 229, es p. 3057 n. 1, and "Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. Op. bei Cicero?," Cicero's K11owledge of the Peripatos [RUSCH 4], ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh and P. Steinmetz, 133-58, es p. 148-50 and 157 n. 49 (New Brunswick, NJ and London 1989) l= Studies ill the Historiography of A11cient Philosophy (Assen and Maastricht 1990) 253-55 and 262 n. 49]. 15 Doubts already in P. Steinmetz, Die Physik des Tlzeophrasros von Eresos (Bad Hom burg, Berlin and Zürich 1964) 334-51 ("Beilage: Theophrasts Physik und ihr Verhaltnis zu den ucruc&v 86Çm"). The problems of the allocation of fragments to the Opi11iones plzysicae are weil presentee\ by Regenbogen, RE Suppl. VII ( 1940) 1535-37. 16 Cf. e.g. the Protr., the EE and the EN. In e.g. Diogenes Laertius and Cicero we sometimes find an anecdote repeated severa! times instead of a cross-reference. Cf. also Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dem. 40. A note here on the statement in 176 FHS&G "ùtatpEÎ ÙÈ 6 8Eowvwv ~Èv émÀÛlv mi ÀÈÇrwv, 8t6n ÀoytKJÎÇ Ècr8ôyyot even have to be equal, because, otherwise, it would be impossible to perceive the phenomenon of cruJlq>rovia (see 74: icrÔ't'T]'t'a ÙT]Àoûv ÙJlcpoîv -roîv cp8ôyyotv). It is

o

54 The word order (Èlc yàp J.lEiÇovoç nÀEiwv Kat toû nÉptÇ ~xoç instead of ÈK yàp J.!EiÇovoç Kat ni..Eiwv wû nÉptÇ ~xoç) helps to make this clear.

o

124

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

relevant to remember th at the proponents of the vibration theory did pay special attention to the acoustic npo~ÀTJ!-UX of cruJlUcrtKWV, Éq>eÇilç a1taÇ 0 Â.Ôyoç ÔEÎÇEt KCll OU ÔEÎtat VÛV Ù7tOÔEÎÇEWÇ · Ôto ot~at taUtf\V ClU'tOÇ tTJV 1tpotacrtv ltŒPllKEV. ~ÉV'tot 8eoq>pacrtoç Év àpxfl tii'>v éamoû ci>uatKii'>v Kat taUtf\V à1té8nÇe ÀÉyrov "1o ~Évtot tii'>v q>ucrtKii'>v àpxàç dvat 8f11..ov ÉK 'tOÛ 'tà ~èv q>UcrtKà OOO~Clt(l dvat cruv9eta, 7tÔ.V 8è auv9e'tOV àpxàç E;(EtV tà èÇ 6.lv OUYKEnat. altClV yàp 'tO (j>UO'El f1 aii'>~a ècrttv f1 Ë;(Et ye OWila. a~q>(l) 8/: cruv9eta." 7 Les principes de la discipline se confondent avec les ceux des objets sur lesquels elle porte. Le glissement est naturel en grec et ne soulève aucune difficulté (cf. A. Laks et G. Most, Théophraste. Métaphysique [Paris 1993]25s. n. 5).

o

146

Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources

avoir une valeur définitionnelle, ou une valeur limitative. Un dével­ oppement postérieur dans le commentaire du même lemme montre que les Anciens étaient conscients, sinon de la distinction théorique, du moins de la possibilité d'analyser la phrase en question de deux façons. Simplicius s'interroge en effet: "Mais comment expliquer qu'après avoir dit 'la connaissance et la science résultent dans toutes les procédures,' il poursuive 'dont il existe des principes, des causes ou des éléments' ?" 8

Sa propre réponse (qui est aussi très vraisemblablement celle d' Alexandre) 9 est que l'ajout vise "une propriété de tous les savoirs scientifiques." "Car," précise-t-il, "'la science, étant un raisonnement démonstratif, 8rocède en tous les cas de principes qui sont des prémisses immédiates." 1

C'est pourquoi, se ralliant à la définition qu'Alexandre avait donnée du terme "procédure" (methodos) comme: "toute disposition théorique qui examine ce qui relève de sa compétence en fournissant la raison, c'est-à dire la cause, ou, ce qui revient au même, une progression conforme à une certaine démarche bien réglée vers l'objet de la connaissance,"

il conclut: "il est manifeste que la connaissance des principes ne saurait être une procédure, mais seule la connaissance scientifique, elle qui s'effectue à partir des principes et causes des objets de la connaissance.'" 1

Cette interprétation 'définitionnelle' de la relative repose sur la disso­ ciation de l'adjectif "toutes," dans "toutes les recherches," de la détermination "qui comportent ... ," de sorte que le syntagme "toutes les 8

13.14-16 (texte cité infra, n. 10). Voir infra, n. 13. 10 13.14-18: 'A"A"Aà rriiiç Eirrwv -ro EiÔÉvm w!-ro Èrricr-racr8m cru11~aivEt rrEpt rrâcraç -ràç 11E8ô8ouç Èrr~yayEv c1v dcrtv àpxa! ~ai'na~ cr-rotXEÎa; f1 wç ï8wv rracriiiv -riiiv Èmcrnwovuciiiv Ei8~crEwv -roû-ro rrpocrÉ8rpŒv. ~ yàp Émcr1~11TJ cruÀÀoytcrllOÇ ol:>cra àrro8wnucàç ÉÇ àpxiiiv rrâv-rwç Écn\ -riiiv à~-tÉcrwv rrpo-râcrEwv. 11 14.21-25: El yàp ~-tÉ8o8ôç Écrnv, wç 'Af...ÉÇav8pôç q>TjcrtV, rràcra rÇtç 8EwpTjnci) -riiiv uU Kat 'Aptcrtol:ÈÀllÇ