Page - 19 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

2.2.1.1 Andronicus Simplicius claims that besides the Peripatetics, Andronicus, too, divides the Physics in the manner described above. There are two different ways in which these remarks may be understood: (1) either Simplicius, as some scholars took it, is merely reporting Andronicus’ view and his reasons for holding it, or (2) he is presenting Andronicus’ view and, since he himself endorses this position, is also presenting additional arguments for it.15 Which of these two options is correct, however, is irrelevant to the task of determining whether one should divide the Physics as indicated in Simpli- cius’ introductory remarks. If the reasons presented by Simplicius for doing so are good ones, it does not matter who their originator is. The mere fact, however, that Andronicus also divided the Physics the same way as the Peri- patetics does not make this position any more likely—especially if one takes into account that there are serious doubts about the true role which Andro- nicus played in the Aristotelian scholarship of his time.16 2.2.1.2 Theophrastus’ letter According to Simplicius, Theophrastus, Aristotle’s disciple and successor as head of the Lyceum, also thought that the first five books were called Phy- sics (Φυσικά), while Books VI–VIII were named On change (Περὶ κινή- σεως).17 Simplicius attempts to prove this by presenting a part of a letter from Theophrastus to Eudemus in which the former seems to refer to a sec- tion from Book V and speaks of this part as belonging to the Physics (ἐκ τῶν Φυσικῶν).18 Therefore, Simplicius seems to think, Theophrastus took Book V to belong to the Φυσικά and not to the Περὶ κινήσεως. It has been doubted whether the letter quoted here really existed. Rather, it has been argued, Simplicius is merely continuing to present what Andro- nicus stated, who cited a letter supposedly written by Theophrastus, although Simplicius himself did not have access to the letter. This would weaken the support for Simplicius’ claim about the correct division of our Physics. 15 See Düring (1957), 417, who claims position (1) and Barnes (1997), 35–36, who argues against that claim and thinks that there is no indication that Simplicius is citing Andronicus here. 16 See p.17, n.11. 17 See In Phys. 6, 923, 9–11. 18 See In Phys. 6, 923, 11–16. The arrangement of the Physics 19 ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen