Page - 18 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

which of them therefore have to be considered as the contextual back- ground to which Phys. VIII originally belonged. The answer to this ques- tion, however, could clearly have an impact on what one thinks is the task of Book VIII and thus on one’s reading of the discussion of the primary kind of change within it, since Aristotle certainly had good reasons to pre- sent this book in its specific context. In general, one can distinguish between two different answers that have been given to this question.13 The first holds that the cut between the two works lies between Physics V and VI, while the second argues that the divid- ing line needs to be drawn after Book IV. Since what needs to be considered as the context and intellectual background of Physics VIII depends on which of the two answers we prefer, i.e. which of the seven preceding books we take to belong to the same treatise as Book VIII, I will now take a closer look at these two options. I will argue that the second option is more appro- priate than the first. 2.2.1 First option: Books VI–VIII as the treatise On Change The first answer may be found in Simplicius’ introduction to his commen- tary on Physics VI. In these introductory remarks Simplicius presents what he says is the common view held by the Peripatetics, namely that the first five books of our Physics were called Physics (Φυσικά), while the last three were named On Change (Περὶ κινήσεως).14 Besides the opinion of the Peripatetics which, of course, does not necessarily have to be identical with Aristotle’s even if he reported it correctly, Simplicius provides other reasons for this assumption. He gives four reasons for dividing the Physics after Book V. He refers (1) to the authority of Andronicus, who according to the tradition arranged and divided the books in this way when he edited Aristotle’s writings. He also claims (2) that Theophrastus shared this view, and (3) that it is also supported by Aristotle himself when he refers to his own works. Finally, (4) Eudemus, too, appears to have divided the Physics in the same way as Andronicus and Simplicius. I shall examine the different reasons in more detail now and argue that, contrary to what Simplicius states, they may, but certainly do not have to speak for the assumption that the essential cut between the two parts of the Physics needs to be made after Book V. 13 See Brunschwig (1991), 28–33. 14 εἴρηται δὲ καὶ πρότερον, ὅτι τὰ μὲν πέντε βιβλία τὰ πρὸ τούτου Φυσικὰ καλοῦ- σιν, τὰ δὲ ἐντεῦθεν τρία Περὶ κινήσεως. In Phys. 6, 923, 7–8: “It was remarked earlier that they call the five books before this one [scil. Book VI] the Physics, and the next three On Motion.” (Transl. by Konstan (1989)) For the names of the different works see p.17, n.12. 18 The importance of the primary kind of change ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen