Page - 20 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

But even if, as has been pointed out, Simplicius were not just citing Andronicus here19, or in the best-case scenario Simplicius is citing a letter really written by Theophrastus, what help would this section be in deciding whether Simplicius’ division is correct? In order to answer this question it is important to understand what the name Τὰ φυσικὰ may refer to in general. Aristotle himself uses this label in very different ways. Ross lists all of them and comes to the conclusion that Aristotle used the names Τὰ περὶ φύσεως and Τὰ φυσικὰ in three different ways.20 (1) There is a narrow usage of Τὰ φυσικὰ which refers to a group of writings that at least included Books II and III, while Books VI and VIII did not belong to this group. (2) According to Ross, these terms also had an intermediate meaning for Aristotle and referred to the work that today we call the Physics, either with or without Book VII. (3) The two terms were also used in a broad sense that besides the two parts of the Phy- sics also included all of the writings that belonged to the science of nature, for instance the De Caelo, the De Generatione et Corruptione and the Meteorologica.21 This is something which Simplicius himself was well aware of, which makes it surprising that he draws the aforementioned conclusion from the letter supposedly written by Theophrastus. For, on the very next page of the introduction to Book VI, Simplicius himself points out that the Peripatetics used the term Τὰ φυσικά in a narrow and in a broad sense, that is, on the one hand for Books I–V, while on the other hand, more generally, for the whole of Physics as the science of nature22, also encompassing works like the De Anima, De Caelo, and so forth. Since the context of Theophrastus’ letter is lacking we are not able to decide whether he is using the broad, intermediate or the narrow meaning of Physics here. He might think that Book V belongs to the Τὰ φυσικά not only in the narrow sense, but in the other two senses as well. Thus, even if the letter is genuine, it does not show that Book V indisputably belongs to the Φυσικά in the narrow sense and not to the treatise Περὶ κινήσεως.23 19 See Barnes (1997), 35–36. 20 See Ross (1936), 2–3. 21 Note, however, that the references Ross presents for the third meaning, as he himself points out, do not show unambiguously that this broad meaning of τὰ φυσικά or τὰ περὶ φύσεως existed, as it is unclear to what exactly they refer (see Ross (1936), 2–3). 22 Φυσικὰ δὲ ἐκάλουν οὐ τὰ ὀκτὼ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ Περὶ οὐρανοῦ καὶ Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ ἄλλα πλεῖστα· ἰδίως δὲ Φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως τὰ πἐντε. In Phys. 6, 924, 15– 16: “They called Physics not only the eight books but also On the Heavens and On the soul and many more; but in the narrow sense the five of the Lecture on Physics.” (Transl. Barnes (1997), 68). 23 Therefore, Moraux (1973), 115, is also wrong when he reads this passage in Simplicius as a proof of the division of the Physics as suggested by Simplicius. 20 The importance of the primary kind of change ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen