Table Of ContentAlexander of Aphrodisias
On Aristotle Meteorology 4
This page intentionally left blank
Alexander of
Aphrodisias
On Aristotle
Meteorology 4
Translated by Eric Lewis
LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway
London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in 1996 by Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Paperback edition fi rst published 2014
© 2013 Eric Lewis (Appendix, Richard Sorabji)
Eric Lewis has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identifi ed as Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on
or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication
can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN HB: 978-0-7156-2684-9
PB: 978-1-4725-5805-3
ePDF: 978-1-4725-0185-1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
The present translations have been made possible by generous
and imaginative funding from the following sources: the National
Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Research Programs,
an independent federal agency of the USA; the Leverhulme Trust;
the British Academy; the Lev©entis Foundation; the Humanities
Research Board of the British Academy; HEFCE; the Wolfson
Foundation; the Jowett Copyright Trustees; the Royal Society
(UK); Centro Internazionale A. Beltrame di Storia dello Spazio e
del Tempo (Padua); Mario Mignucci; Liverpool University. The
editor wishes to thank D. Russell, R. Sharples, D. Furley, M.L.
Gill, J. Lennox, D. Sedley, and P. Lautner for their comments on
the translation; I. Crystal for preparing the Greek-English index;
and R. Wisnovsky for his help in preparing the volume for press.
He also thanks Dr Coutant for his permission to put his earlier
translation to use.
Typeset by Ray Davies
Printed and bound in Great Britain
Contents
Introduction 1
Translator’s Note 61
Translation 63
Notes 127
Appendix: The Commentators 149
Indexes
English-Greek Glossary 159
Greek-English Index 166
Subject Index 183
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
That the Meteorologica is a little-read work is no doubt
due to the intrinsic lack of interest of its contents. Aristotle
is so far wrong in nearly all his conclusions that they can,
it may with justice be said, have little more than a passing
antiquarian interest (cid:125) The main interest of the work is
to be found not so much in any particular conclusions
which Aristotle reaches, as in the fact that all his conclu-
sions are so far wrong and in his lack of a method which
could lead him to right ones. In this he is typical of Greek
science.1
This passage comes from the introduction to H.D.P. Lee’s 1952
translation of the Meteorologica in the Loeb Classical Library,
and was allowed to stand in the second edition of 1962. That
such an eminent scholar of this text could be so disparaging
about it might give us pause before delving into it, let alone
into an ancient commentary on it. Indeed, one might be doubly
wary, since the authenticity of Book 4, the work we are con-
cerned with here, has been called into question. In the following
essays I hope to convince the reader that Meteor. 4 is both
genuine and of great, indeed central, interest to one concerned
with Aristotelian natural philosophy and metaphysics. Estab-
lishing the importance of Meteor. 4 itself will at the same time
establish the interest of ancient commentaries on it. Further
sections will concentrate on what is of most interest within
Alexander’s commentary.
The overt positivism of Lee’s comments points to his particu-
lar prejudice, a disproportionate concern with the correctness
of the scientific doctrines found in the Meteorologica. Even
1. H.D.P. Lee (trans.), Aristotle, Meteorologica, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge,
Mass. 1952 (second edition, 1962), xxv-xxvi.
2 Introduction
without entering into debates concerning the proper attitude
to take when critically judging non-contemporary science, it is
clear that the doctrines themselves, and in particular whether
they are ‘true’ (itself a slippery issue), do not come close to
exhausting the interest of Aristotelian scientific works. The
recent explosion of interest in Aristotle’s biological works,
equally full of ‘false conclusions’, and the great advances in our
understanding of central concepts in Aristotle’s metaphysics
and natural philosophy that such studies have engendered,
should lay to rest reasoning such as Lee’s.2 Were we to discount
the biological corpus for its antiquated biology, our under-
standing of the rest of the corpus would be substantially
impoverished.
I hope to show that Meteor. 4 has the same importance as
works from the biological corpus are now recognised to have.
Indeed, I shall attempt to establish a rather close link between
Meteor. 4 and the biological corpus. But more importantly, I
shall argue that in Meteor. 4 Aristotle modifies, in radical ways,
doctrines central to his physics. In particular, I will show how
Aristotle’s views concerning form, matter and the elements
undergo a radical transformation in Meteor. 4, and that this
work should therefore be considered a fundamental text in the
Aristotelian corpus.
Such claims for the importance of Meteor. 4, and in particular
for its revisionary nature, bring the issue of authenticity to the
fore. Perhaps Meteor. 4 is so revisionary precisely because it is
not by Aristotle. Therefore I will start by discussing the ques-
tion of authenticity. In a sense all the sections that follow are
an extended argument for the work’s authenticity, since they
show just how interrelated it is with many other Aristotelian
texts of unquestioned pedigree. I will then discuss the doctrines
most central to the work, with the aim of establishing precisely
its innovative nature. Often my notes to the translation will
refer to this introduction.
2. Contrast Lee’s view with that of G.E.L. Lloyd, who recognises the importance of
Meteor. 4, telling us that in it we ‘have, for the first time in Greek science, an attempt
to discuss a quite wide range of physical changes and phenomena’ (Magic, Myth and
Experience, 209).
Introduction 3
1. The authenticity of Meteor. 4, and
the question of pores
The debate concerning the authenticity of Meteor. 4 (unques-
tioned until the turn of this century), has as its locus classicus
I. Hammer-Jensen’s 1915 paper ‘Das sogenannte IV. Buch der
Meteorologie’,3 where it is argued that Meteor. 4 is spurious, in
fact having Strato as its author. Ross and Jaeger agree with
her as to the spuriousness of the work, while refusing to
attribute it to a particular author.4 Its authenticity was then
defended by H.D.P. Lee and I. Düring,5 but in 1961 it was again
questioned by H.B. Gottschalk, who claimed that it is by
Theophrastus, or at least extracted from a work of his.6 The
debate seems to come to a close in 1983, with D. Furley’s
rebuttal of Gottschalk,7 arguing that Aristotle is, after all, the
author of Meteor. 4.
One essential person has been left out of this debate, and
that is Coutant. Gottschalk mentions him as someone who has
defended the authenticity of the text, but he acknowledges in
a footnote that he has ‘not been able to see this book’.8 Furley
mentions Coutant in one footnote, yet chose not to mention any
of his arguments in favour of authenticity, although they are
quite congenial to those that Furley himself produces.9 In what
follows I will sketch the main strands of the debate. I am in
agreement with many of the arguments put forth by Coutant
and Furley, and in the rest of the Introduction I will build upon
some suggestions made by both.
Jensen’s claim that Meteor. 4 is by Strato can be rebutted on
chronological grounds. As Coutant notes, Aristotle at least saw
3. In Hermes 50, 113-36.
4. Jaeger, Aristoteles, 412f.; Ross, Aristotle, 11.
5. Lee, op. cit., xiii-xxi; Düring, Aristotle’s Chemical Treatise Meteorologica Bk IV,
Goteburg 1944.
6. H.B. Gottschalk, ‘The Authorship of Meteorologica, Bk IV’, Classical Quarterly
N.S. xi, 1961, 67-78. Lee, in the second edition of his Loeb of the Meteor., is unconvinced
by Gottschalk’s arguments.
7. ‘The Mechanics of Meteorologica IV’, 148 of reprint in Cosmic Problems.
8. Gottschalk, op. cit., 67, n. 4.
9. For instance, Furley summarises approvingly Gottschalk’s arguments against
Jensen’s thesis that Strato is the author of Meteor. 4, while the very same arguments
are found much earlier in Coutant. See Furley, op. cit., 132, and Coutant, op. cit., 9.
