Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:45:02.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theophrastus in Bessarion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Peter Lautner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is no denying that Theophrastus ranks among the most prolific Peripatetic philosophers. Diogenes Laertius lists 225 items in his bibliography, some of them perhaps twice—first as an independent treatise, then as part of a larger work. As time went on, this vast oeuvre suffered the usual vicissitudes: the overwhelming majority of it has been partly or entirely lost. In sharp contrast to the Frankish West, where, despite great losses, more texts were in circulation under Theophrastus' name than was justified, in the ever shrinking Byzantine world we find comparatively few references to him. But this surely does not mean that the small number of references are unreliable.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 115 , November 1995 , pp. 155 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The bulk of the paper was written in the Warburg Institute and I am extremely grateful to Pamela Huby, Jill Kraye, Luc Deitz, Bob Sharples and the anonymous referee for their generous help. All of the remaining shortcomings are of course mine.

References

1 D.L. v 42–51 = Test.1 FHSG.

2 The continuity up to the 12th century has been pointed out by Schmitt, Ch., ‘Theophrastus in the Middle Ages’, in Viator ii (1971) 251–271.Google Scholar Concerning this issue, my debt to his works is evident. One example may be Michael Psellus who was conversant with some of Theophrastus' works on physics, see 77.27 (O'Meara, Leipzig 1989) and 33.57–73 (Duffy, Stuttgart-Leipzig).

3 188.15 ff. (Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann iii, Paderborn 1942Google Scholar). It is highly likely that here Andronicus Callistus is dependent on Theophrastus, Test. 143 FHSG = Simplicius, in Phys. 20.17–26. For this point I am indebted to Bob Sharples.

4 Motion is considered in each category, cf. Test. 153 ABC (all in Simplicius' in Phys.); involves divisibility, cf. Test. 155 AB (from Themistins' in Phys.) and C (in Simplicius' in Phys.).

5 Ep. 7, PG clxi, col. 685.

6 Epistulae 34, 36. In the following, though some of Bessarion's works are also found in PG clxi, my references, whenever it is possible, will be to the page and line of Mohler, L., Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe. Humanist und Staatsmann ii (Paderborn 1927)Google Scholar and iii (Paderborn 1942).

7 214.4 Mohler. Bob Sharples has pointed out to me that the mediator is Simplicius (in De Caelo 564.24 Heiberg = Theophrastus, test. 238 FHSG).

8 See Labowsky, L. ‘Theophrastus' De Plantis and Bessarion’, in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies v (1961) 132–154Google Scholar, and ead., Bessarion's Library and the Bibliotheca Marciana. Six early inventories (Rome 1979) 193, for other works by Theophrastus in Bessarion, see ibid., pp.221–3; Mioni, E.., ‘Bessarione biblofilo, filologo’, in RSBN n.s. v (1968) 61–83Google Scholar, and see also id., ‘Bessarione scriba e alcuni suoi collaboratori’, in Miscellanea marciana di studi bessarionei, (Padova 1976) 263–318, esp. pp. 286, 299.

9 ii 122.10–7 Diehl. This is a part of Test. 159 Fortenbaugh et al. See also Proclus, In Tim. iii 136.1–2 Diehl, and Theol. Plat. 164.17–8 Saffrey-Westerink. The references in his works show that Bessarion had extensive knowledge of Proclus, see Mioni 1976 (n. 8) 279–80. 283. There is a codex containing Proclus' In Tim. (Marc. gr. 195) where scholia by Bessarion are to be found, cf. Mioni, 1976 (n. 8) 284 and the Praefatio by E. Diehl to his edition of Proclus' commentary (vol. i, p.viii). And he had autograph notes on a copy of The Platonic Theology as well (Monacensis graecus 547), see Saffrey, H.D., ‘Notes autographes du cardinal Bessarion dans un manuscrit de Munich’, in Byzantion xxxv (1965) 536–563.Google Scholar

10 Metaphysics xii 7, 1072a26 ff.; cf. Physics i 9, 192a 16–7. For further references, see Ross, W.D., Aristotle's Metaphysics: a revised text with introduction and commentary (Oxford 1924)Google Scholarad. loc.

11 6a5–15 Ross-Fobes. There are different readings of the passage, of course, but they do not alter the line of thought essentially; for these readings, see also Most, G.W., ‘Three Latin translations of Theophrastus' Metaphysics’, in RHT xcviii (1988) 169–201.Google Scholar It may be that Bessarion also translated this treatise into Latin and this was the version printed by Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples in his edition of Argyropylos' translation of the first twelve books of Aristotle's Metaphysics and of Bessarion's translation of the whole work, as it was suggested by Fabricius, J.A., Bibliothecae Graecae liber iii: de scriptoribus qui claruerunt a Platone usque ad tempora nati Christi sospitatoris nostri (Hamburg 1716) 242Google Scholar, referred to by G.W. Most, op. cit., p. 191 who casts doubt on this view.

12 The editio princeps of the De Differentiis is from Venice, 1540. On the controversy, see Monfasani, J., George of Trebizond: a biography and a study of his rhetoric and logic (Leiden 1976) 201–230Google Scholar, and Kristeller, P.O., ‘Platonismo bizantino e fiorentino e la controversia su Platone ed Aristotele’, in Pertusi, A. (ed.), Venezia e l'Oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento (Firenze 1966) 103–16.Google Scholar On Gemistus, see recently Woodhouse, C.M., Gemistus Plethon: the last of the Hellenes (Oxford 1986).Google Scholar The passages relevant to De Differentiis are 193–214.

13 See Simplicius, in Cat. 7.23–32. But this was a view that, to some extent, most of the Neoplatonist commentators accepted.

14 ‘Verborum enim ornatus et compositionis pompa si latius confluat et quasi luctator nudos in harena lacertos ostentet iactetque, omnem gravitatem suam infringit.’ Cf. Monfasani, J., Collectanea Trapezuntiana: texts, documents and bibliographies of George of Trebizond (Binghamton, NY 1984) 303–4Google Scholar, in George's preface to Cardinal Nicolaus Cusanus for the translation of Plato's Parmenides, passage (2).

15 As he says: PG clxi, Ep. 8, col.689 = EP. 49 Mohler, iii 512.27. On his eirenic attitude, see also Taylor, J.W., ‘Bessarion the Mediator’, TAPA lv (1924) 120–27Google Scholar along with the edition of Bessarion's short criticism of Gemistus' attack on Aristotle's theory of substance.

16 He thinks Pletho is PG clxi, Ep. 8, col.688 = Ep. 49 Mohle, iii 511; see also the distichon he intended for Pletho's epitaph, PG clxi, Ep. 10 col.697 = Ep. 22 Mohler, iii 469. Some important events in his youth have been examined by Loenertz, E., ‘Pour la biographie du Cardinal Bessarion’, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica x (1944) 116–49.Google Scholar The best summary I know of Bessarion's life and activity is given by Labowsky, L., ‘Bessarione’, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Roma 1967) 686–96.Google Scholar

17 On the different versions, see Monfasani, J., ‘Bessarion Latinus’, in Rinascimento (2a ser.) xxi (1981) 165–213Google Scholar, and id., ‘Still More on “Bessarion Latinus”’, in Rinascimento (2a ser.) xxiii (1983) 217–37.

18 The later mediaeval and Renaissance theories have been summarized by Kuksewicz, Z., ‘The potential and the agent intellect’, in Cambridge History of Later Mediaeval Philosophy (Cambridge 1982) 595–602Google Scholar, and by Kessler, E., ‘The intellective soul’, in Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge 1988) 485–535 respectively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 I think Bessarion takes and as being interchangeable here, which is rather baffling. One reason for this manoeuvre may be that his aim here was to point to an imperishable element in the human existence. Therefore, what was important to him is to find such an element in the soul, which might have made him possible to talk figuratively about the immortality of the soul by means of the immortality of the intellect.

20 In De Anima 8.13–109.3 CAG v,3 Heinze. The text has been translated into English and annotated by Todd, R.B. in Schroeder, F.M. & Todd, R.B.. Two Greek commentators on the intellect (Toronto 1990).Google Scholar

21 103.20–105.12.

22 103.24–30.

23 90.11–91.16 CAG Suppl. ii, 1 Bruns.

24 106.19–113.24 CAG Suppl. ii,l. English translation and commentary are by F.M. Schroeder in the work cited above at n. 20. He doubts whether this section of the Mantissa is actually by Alexander, see pp.6–22. But the text was certainly taken to be genuine in the Middle Ages. For another dubious section, now of the Quaestiones. see Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones 1.1–2.15 tr. comm. Sharples, R.W. (London/Ithaca NY. 1992) 5Google Scholar n.126 (to the Quaestio 1,11).

25 107.30–1; this illuminationist doctrine has been treated by F.M. Schroeder op. cit., pp.64–6.

26 iii 5, 430a 15–17.

27 In Aristotle, see Metaphysics xii 7, in Alexander, Mantissa 108.28–109.1.

28 109.29–30.

29 122.19–29.

30 On the analogy, see Schroeder, op. cit., p. 19.

31 112.31–113.1.

32 112.5–113.12, esp. 112.21. According to Moraux, P., ‘Aristoteles, der Lehrer Alexanders von Aphrodisias’, AGPh xlix (1967) 169–182Google Scholar, Alexander refers to Aristotle of Mytilene. F.M. Schoeder rejects this view at op. cit., P. 30 For details and references, see Sharples, R.W., ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias: scholasticism and innovation’, in ANRW ii 36.2. 1176–1243Google Scholar, esp. p. 1212. I owe this point to Dr Sharples.

33 On the division, see e.g. CCAA vi,l 389.71–82 Crawford. Reference to the Averroes Latinus seems to be appropriate also because we have no evidence that Bessarion could cope with the Arabic text.

34 234.99–100.

35 See Averroes' Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence) tr. van den Bergh, S. (London 1954) 55, 356–357.Google Scholar As regards the light simile, see 16.

36 356 van den Bergh, and 448.145–449.155 Crawford.

37 PG cvi. 508A-B.

38 The manuscript copied by John the Grammarian from this codex is now in Vienna (Cod. Vindob. philosophicus gr. 314), see Whittaker, J..‘Parisinus graecus 1962 and the writings of Albinus’, Phoenix xxviii (1974) 320–54, 450–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Arethas' activity, see Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich (München 1959) 591–94.Google Scholar His minor works are also indicative of his knowledge of the pagan Platonic tradition; see Westerink, L.G. (ed.), Arethas: scripta minora i–ii (Leipzig 1968–1972).Google Scholar As for pagan Neoplatonists, his knowledge of Hierocles’ Commentary on the Golden Verses is witnessed by his scholia in the same manuscript, see Laourdas, B. & Westerink, L.G., ‘Scholia by Arethas in Vindob. Phil. Gr. 314’, Hellenika xvii (1962), 105–131.Google Scholar

39 103.28, cf. 26.39. The term is also applied by Aristotle (Metaphysics vi 4, 1024b30) and Simplicius attributes it to Eudemus, see in Phys. 97.15, 29; 131.9. So Theophrastus may have used it too. As regards later Neoplatonists, see e.g. Damascius, , De Principiis ii 68.23–4Google Scholar Combès-Westerink (130 Ruelle), and Simplicius, in Cat. 61.25; 62.8; 75.16; 218.15; 374.16; 423.33, in Phys. 561.10; 644.27; 774.14.

40 Mantissa 111.5–14.

41 Edited by I. Bywater in CAG Suppl. i,2. The mediaeval references have been examined by Huby, P.M., ‘Mediaeval evidence for Theophrastus' discussion of the intellect’, in Fortenbaugh, W.W., Huby, P.M. & Long, A.A. (ed.), Theophrastus of Eresus: on his life and works (New Brunswick, NJ-Oxford 1985) 165–84.Google Scholar See also Huby, P.M., ‘Stages in the development of language about Aristotle's Nous’, in Blumenthal, H. and Robinson, H. (ed.), Aristotle and the later tradition (Oxford 1991) 129–42Google Scholar, where she points out that Theophrastus had a limited noetic vocabulary, though perhaps not so limited as she thinks, as I try to show. Her assumption has been criticised by Devereux, D., ‘Theophrastus on the intellect’, in Fortenbaugh, W.W. & Gutas, D. (ed.), Theophrastus: his psychological, doxographical and scientific writings (New Brunswick, NJ & London 1992) 32–43.Google Scholar He also admits the existence of a productive intellect in Theophrastus.

42 Themistius, in De Anima 107.31 ff. (Test. 307A), Priscian, Metaphrasis 26.7 (Test. 307B).

43 Themistius, in De Anima 108.13–18 (in Test. 307A).

44 Fr.74 Wehrli, ap. Simplicius in Phys. 965.7–17. In his commentary, Wehrli takes it as indicating a denial of Aristotle's theory of (Die Schule des Aristoteles v: Straton von Lampsakos [Basel 1950] 62), cf. also Frr. 123–128, displaying arguments against the immortality of the soul. For this controversial aspect of Strato's psychology, see also Isnardi-Parente, M., ‘Le obiezioni di Stratone al “Fedone” e l'epistemologia peripatetica nel primo ellenismo’, RFIC cv (1977) 287–306Google Scholar, now reprinted in a revised form in her Filosofia e scienza nel pensiero ellenistico (Naples 1991) and Repici, L., La natura e l'anima: saggi su Stratone di Lampsaco (Torino 1988) 33–38.Google Scholar Against Wehrli, Repici denies that this evidence is decisive.

45 Ap. Priscian, Metaphrasis 27.8–14, 28.13–29.1 (Test. 307C–D).

46 Ap. Themistius, in De Anima 107.32 (Test. 307A).

47 Ap. Themistius, in De Anima 107.32–108.1 (Test. 307A). Barbotin, E., La théorie aristotélicienne de l'intellect d'après Théophraste (Louvain-Paris 1954) 248–9Google Scholar (who takes this passage as fr. 1), followed by Todd, op.cit., p.113, thinks that Theophrastus hints at the of the embryo; but I think that we can understand this phrase as also referring to the ‘birth’ of the human soul itself.

48 Ap. Priscian, Metaphrasis 27.13–14 (Test. 307C).

49 Most clearly in Albertus Magnus, de Anima 3.2.5, p.183.84–184.13 (included into Test. 314A). The text has been examined by P.M. Huby, 1985 (n. 41).

50 De Anima 82.1, see P.M. Huby, 1991 (n. 41).

51 See P.M. Huby, 1991 (n. 41) 169. She contrasts and but does not draw a parallel between and

52 In a forthcoming commentary volume to FHSG, Pamela Huby points out that, when interpreting Aristotle's words about Orphism at De Anima 1 5, 410b27–31, Iamblichus (in his De Anima, in Stobaeus, Anthology i 49.32, vol.i 366.25–367.2 Wachsmuth) referred to a doctrine of Aristotle, exposed perhaps in the De Philosophia, which said something of this kind, that there is a single external soul from which parts split off. If Iamblichus, or Stobaeus, is reliable, then any full-blown development of Aristotle's theory of the intellect by Theophrastus would be ruled out. On the other hand, knowing the relation of Theophrastus to Aristotle, in this way we may have a tiny evidence for the thesis that in following his master Theophrastus represented such a doctrine. This question is different from the problem of who the ultimate source for Iamblichus or Stobaeus was. I am indebted to Dr Huby for sending me the relevant part of her commentary.

53 It may be helpful to take account of the libraries in the late Byzantine period, but, to my knowledge, there is no comprehensive study on Plethon's library at Mistra, which must have been well stocked with works on philosophy and theology. Wilson, N.G. (‘The libraries in the late Byzantine period’, GRBS viii (1967) 53–80)Google Scholar examines three provincial libraries only: Otranto, Patmos and Athos.