Page - 24 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

to assume that Book VII was placed between VI and VIII because it was considered to be related (οἰκεῖον) to the arguments presented in Book VIII.37 This then was the cause of the confusion on where the division between On Nature and On Change needs to be made: it seems that Andronicus, or whoever was responsible for the division, divided the whole of the Physics in the wrong way, as they falsely took Book VII to belong between Books VI and VIII and wanted this division to accord with Eudemus’ statement that the original treatise On Change consisted of three books.38 If one knows that Book VII was not an original part of the work, it becomes clear that the Physics needs to be divided after Book IV rather than where Andro- nicus and Simplicius suggest.39 Based on the testimonies presented in this section one has to conclude that the dividing line between the two works of which our Physics (at least) consisted needs to be drawn after Book IV. Since Book VII has to be con- sidered a misplacement, the treatise On Change most likely comprises Books V, VI and VIII. Situating the discussion of the primary kind of change in Book VIII accordingly makes it a part of the larger project for the examination of the phenomenon of change that the treatise On Change per- forms. Yet, thus far I have only taken a look at different testimonies that may be read as suggesting different ways of dividing the Physics. My intention was to show first of all that these testimonies rather speak against what seems to be Andronicus’ division. Of course, it is an examination of the content of Books V, VI and VIII that should finally help us decide whether Philopo- nus’ position is correct. Therefore, I will now have a look at these books in greater detail and present what is of importance with respect to the current discussion. As we will see, from this perspective as well, it is clear that Books V, VI and VIII belong together. one single change that is everlasting (see VI 10). Book VIII then starts by asking whether change is eternal and by finally arguing for the claim that it indeed is and that therefore one single everlasting change must exist, if there is to be any change at all. 37 See In Phys. 7, 1037, 3. 38 See Brunschwig (1991), 31. Wehrli (1955), 78, at least points in this direction by men- tioning that, even though this is rather implausible, Damas in the fragment of his biography of Eudemus might have been referring to Books V, VI and VIII when speaking of the “three books On Change”. 39 Another source of information about the composition of the Physics is the ancient cata- logues on Aristotle’s works. There are three such lists, all of which may be found in Düring (1957): by Diogenes Laertius, Hesychius, and Ptolemy. Since the conclusions that may be drawn from an examination of these catalogues, as Ross (1936), 5, puts it, are “highly conjec- tural” and do not really show which of the two views is the right one, I will not discuss them here in more detail. 24 The importance of the primary kind of change ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen