EARLY REACTIONS TO PLATO'S "TIMAEUS": POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS

AND EPICURUS
Author(s): HAN BALTUSSEN
Source: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, No. 78, ANCIENT
APPROACHES TO PLATO'S "TIMAEUS" (2003), pp. 49-71
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43767932
Accessed: 31-01-2017 01:42 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Institute of
Classical Studies. Supplement

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 EARLY REACTIONS TO PLATO'S TIMAEUS :
POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN
THEOPHRASTUS AND EPICURUS

HAN BALTUSSEN

We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the
tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers
'Plato's Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition' an obvious choice of topic h
discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare to be commenting upon or c
text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as
clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.
My perspective is slightly different. Commentary as we usually see it must
precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence rel
Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at
whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the 'commentary trad
things are less clear and well-defined in that at this end of the scale we are dea
emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions - e
commentary or a commentator is - would no longer have an obvious value as st
and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (
is a commentary?', 'what form did the interpretation of texts take?'
commentaries emerge?') require a fresh look.
The 'prehistory' of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of
Derveni papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BC, rep
running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his r
collection of essays on this 4th century 'commentary', Edward Hussey already poin
'DP' s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized,
shows parallels with the Protagoras , and suggests a self-conscious academic disc
making'.1 The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus
in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus - as has bee

1 E. Hussey, 'The Enigmas of Derveni', Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 17 (1999) 303-24
comment linking the Protagoras with interpretation is found in A. Ford, 'Protagoras' head: interpre
fragments in Theaetetus' AJPh 1 15 (1994) 199-218 (212). In a forthcoming paper on the Protagora
the so-called 'Simonides episode' (340-48) as evidence for the 'prehistory' of exegesis (forthcoming
Science and Exegesis , proceedings of 2002 Commentators Conference, eds P. Adamson, H. Baltussen

Ancient approaches to Plato's 'Timaeus'

49

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

only recently especially through the work of David Sedley.2 My c

provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and pe
The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variab
slanted towards a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus' wor
across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a
scholar once commented, 'reading Theophrastus is like reading Ar
perhaps somewhat occasional remark may refer only to the styl
quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of w
output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times Theo
been so closely associated with Aristotle's that his works be
master's.3 In late antiquity The general consensus of the comm
seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the h
opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters'.4
Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on
second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist trad
instructive to have a look at these, because they say something n
Theophrastus, but also about the perception of his comments in A
I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early
emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest the
the commentary tradition.5 The crucial question which will be cons
is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of co

1. Interpreters and commentators: some basic distinctions

In his latest book, Plato's First Interpreters (London 2000), H

number of interesting questions regarding the exegetical history
the Timaeus. One of the central questions is the following: 'when
An important part of his answer involves the explicit assumption
distance from the prime author commented upon, and that therefor
is most significantly done on texts. This also means that Ta
Peripatetics, in particular Aristotle and Theophrastus. One implic
thus seems to be that Plato's First Interpreters are only to be f
tradition of exegesis, though he does not subscribe to a possible co
interpreters acting in defence of Plato. Yet surprisingly Theophrast
book (or in the index) so far as I can see. I feel that this not only
taking 'interpreters' merely to refer to 'sympathetic' readers - th
basically as Plato's followers - but also to take the label 'interpr

2 For Stoic readings there is little to add to the thorough study of G. Reydams-Schils
and Platonist readings of Plato's Timaeus (Turnhout 1999).
3 Cf. O. Regenbogen, 'Theophrasť, RE Supplbd 7 (1940) cols. 1354-1562 (1371-7
in P. O. Kristeller, ed., Catalogus translationum et commentariorum , vol.2 (Wash
4 H. J. Blumenthal, Aristotle and Neoplatonism in late antiquity: interpretations
Since this is based exclusively on the commentators on Aristotle's De anima , it is not
on this below.

5 Cf. n.l above.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN B ALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 5 1

éÇriyriTTiç) in a fairly limited sense. That I would rather see that the Peripateti
included in this account of 'Interpreters' of Plato, should not be taken as saying that T
criterion for those deserving the title of Interpreter is not legitimate. Rather I would a
it is perhaps somewhat strict. I would hold that all commentary implies interpretation
not all interpretation implies commentary.
My aim here is not to challenge Tarrant's book, nor to enter into a terminological
on the question when an author can be called an 'interpreter' (though there are reaso
that question, so that this issue will be given some space in the concluding sectio
interest in the Peripatetic engagement with Plato's work on cosmology lies in th
question as to which forms of exegesis contributed to the shape, terminology and s
of the formal commentary. I therefore think that by exploring some of the early rea
the Timaeus (Aristotle, Theophrastus, Epicurus) we may find some promising ma
help delineate the early examples of interpretation and exegesis. But the more imm
question that will concern us is about the problematic nature of the Theophrastean
when taken together.
So by presenting some of my thoughts on these early reactions, bits of polemi
interpretative attempts I hope to present an account which may qualify the common v
commentary is a post-Aristotelian affair. After all, the fact that we had just on
evidence for formal commentary in the anonymous Commentary on Plato's Theaet
hardly sufficient to leave it at that. Not only is its date a point of debate and its featu
lemma with discussion) too far developed to have just come up out of thin air, we n
a text with equally developed formal features of a much earlier date: the Derveni P
(4th century BC). With this in mind it has become a matter of some urgency to enq
the emergence of exegesis.

2. Theophrastus on the Timaeus

2.1 The verdict on Theophrastus' comments on the Timaeus is often based only on
evaluation of the available evidence. In my study of the argumentative procedures o
sensibus I argued that Theophrastus was among the early 'commentators'6 on Plato's
logy. The reports and criticisms in DS are his most extensive references to the Tim
know of, but we also find allusions to it outside DS.1 Both inside and outside the A
the work evoked reactions, both positive and critical.8 The most famous example
controversy is the argument over the creation of the cosmos which started 'among
immediate followers',9 eg. Aristotle, Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Crantor. Theophra
took part in this debate, as we shall see shortly. That such criticisms and attemp

6 Much of this section is based on H. Baltussen, Theophrastus against the Presocratics and Plato. Peripate
in his De sensibus (Leiden 2000), ch. 4 with some added observations. I use inverted commas because the
controversy over the status of the early 'comments' on the Tim. (eg. D. T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the
of Plato (Leiden 1986) 47-53, 56n.). On the status of such 'commentaries' see also A. Nock, 'Posidoniu
(1959) 1-15; I. G. Kidd, Posidonius (2 vols in 3 parts) vol. 2, The Commentary , (i) Testimonia and fragm
(Cambridge 1988) 338-40, on F85 = Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 7.93.
7 Eg. in his CP 6, Metaph. and some fragments (discussed below).
8 Runia, Philo, above n.6, 38 ff.

9 W. K. C. Guthrie, A history of Greek philosophy (6 vols) vol.5 (Cambridge 1978) 302.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 52 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

interpretation can be viewed as interpretation is a reasonable

assessment. One point of similarity with later more established
fact that early reactions could immediately lead to 'philologica
cases we would label manipulations.10
It seems natural to assume that Theophrastus had access to a
some point in his life. It is on this assumption that the Tima
regarded as a Source' and an excerpt respectively. This se
inaccuracy of parts of Theophrastus' report in DS has not yet b
Critics often speak of his approach as highly selective and incom
neutral) statement is found in Eichholz: Theophrastus was acqu
remark made with reference to DS, his Metaphysics and frr. 28,
question of what Theophrastus' criteria were for selecting mate
suggested ( Theophrastus against the Presocratics , above n.6, 1
the reports in DS are not all based on the full text, but partly
remains a speculative suggestion, it would explain some of the
This point needs careful consideration. At first glance it is str
to 'quotations' in DS stand side by side with puzzling omissions
is understandable that Theophrastus preferred to produce a c
relevant passages of this difficult dialogue. We are fairly certain
of sources in the case of other philosophers (Anaximander, Dem
explanations are marred by the methodological flaw that the
results from a restricted analysis and apply them to the Tim. p
that he takes a distinctly Aristotelian position merely explain
crepancies.14 Nor will it suffice to assume that Theophrastus, l
'quoting' from memory.15 Although on occasion misquotation
practice common in antiquity, too often they are judged accor

10 See J. Whittaker, Textual comments on Timaeus 27 c-d', Phoenix 27 (1973)

this topic needs further investigation, and further on 'ideological emendations' J.
ideological emendations in Plato, with special reference to the Timaeus' AJPh
1 1 D. E. Eichholz, Theophrastus : De Lapidibus (Oxford 1965), 22. The most ov
'Plato in Theophrastus' De sensibus' Phronesis 4 (1959) 59-70 (60): 'he has ei
evidence of the Timaeus .'

12 Until recently this point was not overly discussed in the learned literature and was confined to a small number of
passages. A more extensive evaluation is now presented in A. A. Long, 'Theophrastus' De sensibus on Plato', in Poly-
histor. Papers offered to J. Mansfeld on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday , eds. K. A. Algra, P. van der Horst, and
D. T. Runia (Leiden 1996) 345-62, on which see also Baltussen, Theophrastus , above n.6, 136-39 (appendix to Ch. 4).
13 Eg. Aristotle's reports, summaries, the 'original' writings or copies of these.
14 Cherniss and some others (eg. G. R. Thompson, Theophrastus on Plant Flavors and Odors, Studies on the
Philosophical and Historical Significance of De Causis Plantarum VI [diss. Princeton 1941] 107 ff.) attempt to show
that Theophrastus is deliberately omitting certain statements made by Plato in order to suit his own argument (and
refutation) better. McDiarmid (above n. 10, 60 ff.) argued that in DS 83 and 88 Theophrastus' summary and
interpretation can only be understood fully if we take the Aristotelian discussion of the same topics into account.
15 Taylor (< apud G. M. Stratton, Theophrastus and the Greek physiological psychology before Aristotle [Amsterdam
1964 (1917)], n. 205) simply assumes Theophrastus is quoting from memory.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 53

philological accuracy. The notion of 'quotation from memory' cannot be conclus

explaining variety in texts and should be used with caution.16

2.2. It cannot be denied that odd things happen while Theophrastus describes and
the Platonic material. To exemplify this I confine myself to two examples, refer
reader to my more extensive discussion elsewhere.17 Firstly, there are puzzling re
omissions. For instance, in DS 5 he remarks that 'Plato has touched upon the indivi
organs more extensively, yet he deals not with all , but only with hearing and sight'
seem that such a remark is based exclusively on Timaeus 45-47. He seems to con
'lack' of available evidence when he states (DS 6):

on the sense of smell and taste and touch he says (a) nothing at all, nor does he
whether there are any others beside these, but (c) he does give a more precise acc
the objects of sense.

As my itemization of the passage here shows, this short sentence makes no fewer
claims: (a) 'nothing at all con smell, touch or taste>' is true in a strict sense if on
look no further than Tim. 45a-47e, where Plato discusses sight separately. He here
teleology in relation to the senses as instrumental for reaching rationality
understanding of the universe. Hearing is treated only generally (47c4-e2),
complete list of the rcaihļļuaTa of the bodies and their effect on the senses lat
Theophrastus discusses such topics as odours and tastes in DS 84-85 and admits t
did. Moreover, Plato discusses qualities, pleasure and pain, tastes, odours, sounds
between 61d-68e. I think Stratton was right in taking this remark to pertain mer
objects of the senses, not to the internal process.18 In the Tim. we find several p
these subjects. At 65b, for instance, Plato says he is going to discuss the special se
(xà ô' év iôíoiç juépeaiv), because the general affections of the whole body (ibid.
have been dealt with already.19 This division into 'general affections of the whole
'those in specific parts' is again not reflected in Theophrastus' account, though he
about the contrast general-specific regarding the theory of Empedocles (DS 1-2). W
exclude the possibility that Theophrastus simply does not accept Plato's concept o
sensibility' as pertaining to touch.

16 J. Whittaker, The value of indirect tradition in the establishment of Greek philosophical texts or
misquotation', in Editing Greek and Latin texts , ed. J. N. Grant (New York 1989) 63-95 (64) has point
'faulty memory in the case of short quotations, and carelessness in the case of longer passages do play
in addition notes that 'in the indirect transmission of philosophical texts ... an equally frequent and fer
corruption (if this be the appropriate term) can be found in the persistent inclination of the scholars and w
ancient world to introduce into their quotations deliberate alteration .' (italics mine).
17 'The purpose of Theophrastus' De sensibus reconsidered', Apeiron 31-2 (1998) 167-99, and Theophra
n.6.

18 Stratton follows Beare in translating õAxoç oúôév as 'nothing whatever'. Beare' s translation however is more
accurate in that he renders the nouns as actions (verbs) and adds an interpretative element [which I have italicised]:
'With regard to smelling, tasting, and touching, as sensory functions, Plato (says Theophrastus) has told us nothing
whatever, ...' (italics Beare).

19 By general affections he means tactual sensibility, pleasure and pain, on which see Cornford's remarks
(F. M. Cornford, The Timaeus of Plato (London 1956; 1st edn 1937), 269 ff.).

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

What about the remark (b) 'whether there are any ot

comment of this kind is only found here, and it would appe
five sense organs is used as a yardstick for the theories at i
about the fixed number of the senses at De an. 3.1 comes
number of passages where the Peripatetic criteria underlyin
detectable. Point (c) seems to refer ahead to the account i
almost exactly the same as in the Tim. In what way they
Although these three points are helpful in assessing the a
paraphrase of Plato's words, they only have limited value fo
were behind this strategy. But at least they show that ther
Theophrastus' remarks.
Secondly, there is a great number of surprising criticism
briefly look at the report in DS 83-86. Here he follows the
selectively:

(83) hot-cold (Tim. 61de),

(84) hard-soft (Tim. 62a, b),
(85) light-heavy (Tim. 62b),
(86) rough and smooth (Tim. 63e8-64al)

A particular case in point of divergence from Plato is the discussion of the hot and cold (DS
83 corresponding to Tim. 62a-b). Theophrastus reproduces only one out of three features
responsible for our experience of 'that which is hot' as Plato puts it (61d-e). I here give first
the Greek passages and then the respective translations.20

Tim. 62b DS 83 [= DG 524.23f.]

to ôè Ttapà (púoiv auvayojuevov
'iá%exai Kara (pi3aiv avio éauTÒ eiç
ToúvavTÍov à7îa)ôoûv. tt) bv'ļjaxrļ tt] yàp
Kai tô oeiojLicp TOÚTcp rpófjoçKcà (náx
pîyoçè T8Ôr|, ijíuxpóv Te to ná&oç
änav toûto Kai tò ôpàv aí)TÒ eo%ev
ó vojna.

that which is against nature being for the battle has the name 'trembling'
brought together is itself fighting itself and the feeling <the name> 'cold'.
according to nature and thus being
pushed away in the opposite direction.
He has attributed to the battle and to this

shaking the name trembling and cold,

and the whole cold feeling which does
this got this name.

20 Cf. Baltussen, Theophrastus , above n.6, 121-22.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 55

Theophrastus attributes the name pîyoç to the affection, but in the Timaeus it is sai
the shivering and the cold which result from the 'battle between the particles'.21 It
by strongly reducing the passage to essentials he has obscured the relation between
effect. Regarding the context we may note that Theophrastus preserves the no
'name-giving' so prominent in the Timaeus without showing any awareness of
function in Plato.

Thirdly, one can detect a few odd mistakes (if that is the right word). One particular
example will help to bring out a puzzling absence in his account. There is only one reference
to the 'resembling account' (eiKÒç Xóyoç) in the whole of the DS.

Tim. 68b6-8 (cf. d2) (tr. Cornford, DS 86 (tr. Stratton, modified)

modified)
in what proportions they are mixed it as for these proportions he says one
would be foolish to state, even if one ought not to state them, even if one
could know; the matter is one in which no knew (how), of which things we do not
one could be even moderately sure of have a likely account or a necessary
giving a necessary or a likely account . one.

What is striking about Theophrastus' report is, first, that here 'quotation' (italicized) and
paraphrase alternate within one passage, and second, that there is a reversal in word-order.22
But more importantly the expression 'likely account' seems confined to the explanation of
colours, which makes it look like a mechanical repetition of the source instead of a sensible
paraphrase.
The final remarks on this subject are particularly interesting for our understanding of
Theophrastus' method of excerpting. Since Plato is rather elaborate here and in other
passages, it seems a sensible intervention on the part of an excerptor to reduce the passage
considerably. But the discrepancies are clearly worrying for the modern reader, and it is
difficult to avoid the suspicion that there is something strange going on in this treatise. I shall
come back to this aspect at the end of the paper.

2.3. At this point we should outline some general features in the methodology of the DS on
the basis of the evidence reviewed (cf. Baltussen, Theophrastus , above n.6, 129-35):

(1) Theophrastus' knowledge of the Timaeus seems comprehensive, yet he only uses it
very selectively, focussed on information concerned with physiological aspects of sense
perception.

(2) he sometimes draws on two separate sections in the Tim. (DS 5 bears on Tim. 45 &
67b; DS 85 sound and musical harmony draws on Tim. 67b & 80a-b; the account of
smells on Tim. 49c & 66d-67a). It entails a rearrangement of the source and indicates that
his working procedure consisted in carefully selecting the material on the mechanics of
perception.

21 Cf. Aristotle, De cáelo 306b33-307a3.

22 ļjTļte Tivà àv(xyKT|v ļjīļTe xòv eÍKÓTa A.óyov becomes <L>v oúk exopev eÌKÓxa Xóyov fļ àvayKaîov. On the
relevance of word-order see Whittaker, The value of indirect tradition', above n.16, 71 ff.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 56 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

(3) Theophrastus mixes quotation with paraphrase in his exc

(4) he is more elaborate in his criticism when it comes to d

from sense organs, and what's more, the nine objections he for
a strict set of rules, in particular a theoretical framework based
subjects, where specific causes operate on specific levels an

(5) there is a strongly formal approach towards Plato's view

on definition (which is considered either bad or absent), the
concerned with genus (as argued in Baltussen, Theophra
120-26).

It is clear from this summary and these examples that something is wrong with the way in
which the Timaeus is represented here. If not completely wrong, we can at least say that there
is a degree of manipulation and/or 'unfairness' present in the reporting, while the criticisms
indicate an underlying agenda of an 'Aristotelian frame of mind'. There is a distinct
possibility that he used a summary version as a working manuscript for personal use only
alongside the 'complete' Timaeus text. In comparison with Aristotle Theophrastus reproduces
more about less, whereas Aristotle reproduces less about more. The limited perspective
indicates that the original purpose of the Tim . as a whole was irrelevant to him in DS' after
all, the eÍKÒç Àóyoç is not mentioned in a meaningful way, and there is also no mention of
the teleological motif, which looms so large in the Platonic dialogue.
I have argued elsewhere that this can partly be explained from the dialectical strategies
applied in the critique. But I have also remarked that the impression we get from this text is
'incompatible with the general picture of his approach, which is usually well-informed23 or
with his judgement, which is by and large carefully stated' (Baltussen, Theophrastus , above
n.6, 135). It is for this reason that I want to expand on my previous analysis and look at less
quoted evidence to reassess Theophrastus' reputation as a reporter of Plato, which nowadays
is based on DS alone. But before I do, I want to make a brief comparison in polemical
method with one of Theophrastus' contemporaries, with whom he was connected in several
ways.

3. Epicurus' criticism of Plato's account of the elements

3.1 As said at the outset, Epicurus should find a place in this discussion, not only because his
criticisms of the Timaeus have had little attention (I know of one exception to this rule, about
which more in a moment), but also to show that there was more going on apart from the
obvious critics of Plato, that is, the Peripatetics. In addition I think it worthwhile at least to
bring to the reader's attention some very relevant information regarding the connection
between all four thinkers (Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus and Epicurus) to be found in the
recent book by David Sedley on Lucretius - not an obvious place to look for information on

23 See Phys. Op. Fr. 9 [also section 4 below] where the gist of the Timaeus is given in only a few lines (cf. Runia,
Philo of Alexandria, above n.6, 482 n.37).

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 57

the value of Theophrastus for the reception of the Timaeus. Sedley's magnificent s
out this connection in chapters 5-6.24

3.2. Epicurus, a younger contemporary of Theophrastus, was a highly polemical

There is evidence that he attacked several people, often as a defensive move, alt
reputation as a polemicist has been shown to be exaggerated as the result of a
campaign against him.25 Among the remains of his physics we have a critique of th
and Plato's views of the elements in book XIV. Although Epicurus may be exp
disagree with Plato on a lot of things in physics (eg. teleology, providence of God w
to the cosmos, the creationist view of the genesis of the world) we can first qui
some short passages showing his style of attack on Plato's four element t
combination of Empedoclean and Pythagorean ideas. The text preserved in a papy
available in the fairly recent edition by Leone (1984), a papyrus from Herculaneu
is an Italian translation only, I give my own English translation of 4 columns.)

Epicurus On Nature book XIV cols. 33-39 (PHerc. 1 148, ed. G. Leone, CrErc 1
ff.):

Fr. 60, col. 34

[one might object to] those who define a particular form of fire or of earth or air, because
they are even more laughable than those who do not define them, but according to the
examples given admit - unwillingly or willingly - that certain specific forms of shapes
come about in accordance with each compound (which would be) called substantial
[Aristotle]. These then are mistaken with regard to the elements, but by speaking thus
would have to say something more coherent with these things, and in general the change
is through the mixtures.

col. 35: 'how could one conceive of water, air or fire, when one cannot even conceive of
earth as solid and insoluble, unless they were seen to cut these up? For if each one of
them will be regarded as not solid, one would provide many and variable representations
by the divisions of the shapes, and not triangles nor pyramids or cubes or any other
distinct shape.'

col. 36: do fire and flame (a different shape) give rise to the same representation?

col. 38 (part): '...the triangles from which he puts together the remaining shapes. If they
were to be assumed indivisible, why does he not provide a proof thai they are indivisible
bodies? If they are not indivisible, why would anybody think that the remaining ones are
put together out of these?'

24 D. Sedley, Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge 1998). For another enthusiastic
endorsement of the book see the review by C. Gill in The Classical Journal 2001 .

25 On this view see esp. D. Sedley, 'Epicurus and his Professional Rivals', in Études sur l' Épicurisme antique , eds
J. Bollack and A. Laks, Cahiers de philosophie 1 (Lille 1976) 1 19-59.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO'S TIMAEUS

In col. 34 Epicurus discusses two views, rejecting both: th

have fixed forms (Plato), and the view that they would n
constituents of the world. In other columns Epicurus ma
elements which look less familiar: first, he objects to attri
to the elements (?cf. Tim. 54-56, elements as eïôr| or
assumption that Plato would take the elements to be 'sol
pointed out26 that this can be explained more easily if we
criticisms in De cáelo 3.7-8:

In general the attempt to give a shape to each of the simple bodies is unsound , for the
reason, first, that they will not succeed in filling the whole. [...] Secondly, it is manifest
that the simple bodies are often given a shape by the place in which they are included,
particularly water and air. In such a case the shape of the element cannot persist ; for, if
it did, the contained mass would not be in contact with the containing body; if its shape
changed it would cease to be water, since the distinctive quality is shape. Clearly then
their shapes are not fixed.

This connection seems a distinct possibility. Aristotle's argument also emphasizes the shape
as a crucial and problematic feature of simple bodies. Obviously a conclusion which Plato
would want to avoid is that 'a part of fire is not fire'. Both critics agree that shape (ļnopcpīļ)
cannot be given the explanatory role for the substantiality of matter. But all three thinkers
choose a different angle for their criticism, since they each assume another 'level' at which
substantial existence is situated.

As Schmid has argued, it seems that Epicurus' objections suffer from the same kind of
system-clash as do Aristotle's, with the result that one can doubt whether he really was able
to give Plato a sympathetic reading. Their disagreements over crucial issues in physics, such
as the concept of form, which for Plato was defined in terms of space, whereas Epicurus
relied on resistance and thus a more material solidity, were probably irreconcilable. Clearly
Epicurus adheres to the view that the elements belong to the level of the phenomenal world,
while adapting the Aristotelian criticism that the divisibility of bodies is at risk - if one
assumes, as both think Plato does, that they have a definite shape. Likewise other key
concepts such as the role of god or the basic items which constitute the physical world,
prevented him from a fair reading so far as we can see. But it does show us Epicurus as
someone capable of upholding his position against other theories with whatever ammunition
he could find. In this respect polemic has a certain consistency in all periods.

3.3 Here I would like to add a further interesting point, the intriguing yet very complicated
connection with the Peripatetics brought out by Sedley. In his illuminating book on
Lucretius' adaptation of Epicurus' physics into Latin poetic form, Sedley has pointed out that
there is a close line of dependence from Lucretius to Epicurus to Theophrastus, especially
regarding certain polemical arguments. In a rather intricate analysis too long to repeat here
(see his Ch. 3, §5), he picks out the argument in Lucretius 5.156-234. I will here try to

26 See W. Schmid, Epikūrs Kritik der platonischen Elementenlehre (Leipzig 1936) 22 ff.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 59

summarize the main thread of his argument with a view to connecting it up with th
of polemic and exegesis.
The particular thesis Lucretius is arguing against in 5.156-234 is that of 'creation
destruction'. In other words, he rejects the idea that the world is created but not des
as one would expect from someone who is a believer in the atomistic model where
atoms and void exist (in the strong sense of 'exist'). The crucial question - against wh
argument might be directed - Sedley answers in favour of Plato. Why the target h
Plato can be argued on several grounds, but the most important reasons for this con
are the following three: (1) it cannot be the Stoics because they believed in a destruc
the world (conflagration), (2) this thesis of what Sedley calls 'asymmetrical creationi
was known as the idiosyncratic view of Plato {Tim.). In addition, (3) the teleological e
that the world will not be destroyed 'thanks to the benevolence of its creator', is clearl
in the Timaeus 32c.

Sedley then goes on to note that one element attacked by Lucretius (for obvious reasons),
namely that the world was created for the sake of mankind, is not found in the Timaeus. What
is very interesting for our purposes is his next suggestion, that by Epicurus' day the Timaeus
might have been read in a providential way - as a reason for this one could think of the
Ttpovoia mentioned in Tim. 30b-c with regard to the creation of the world as an 'ensouled
and intelligent animal', and Tim. 39b-e which contains a clear indication 'that the heavens
were created for the sake of mankind' (Sedley, 76).
How could we possibly shore up such an idea without risking the implication that this
would be a Stoic retrojection of the providential world picture? It is here that Sedley brings
in Theophrastus. In a fragment preserved by Simplicius we find a paraphrase of the main
theme of the Timaeus characterizing the world with two principles, 'matter' and 'god' (fr. 230
FHS&G):

And Plato posits three causes in the strict sense, the maker and the paradigm and the end,
... Theophrastus however after giving his account of the other (natural philosophers [?])
says: 'after these came Plato, before them in reputation and ability though after them in
date. He concerned himself chiefly with metaphysics (Třepí, rrjç TtpiOTTļg (piÀooocpíaç)
but also attended to the phenomena, taking up the enquiry concerning nature (trjç rcepi
(pi3oeo)ç ioTopíaç); here he wished to make the principles two in number , one underlying
(things) as matter, - and this he calls 'receptive of all things' (Tiavôexeç); the other being
cause and source of movement, and this he attaches to the power of god and of the good'.
Alexander however refers to Plato as saying that the principles are three ...
(Simplicius, In Ph. 26.5-15 Diels)

On the basis of this text Sedley suggests persuasively that it could be indicating that this kind
of reading was current in the Academy, thus prefiguring the Stoic view of the cosmos. Sedley
could be right when he says that it is at least very unlikely that Theophrastus would come to
such a conclusion on the basis of his own reading (but more on this point shortly). This is
made plausible by pointing to, on the one hand, the connection between Polemo, the last
dogmatic Platonist and Zeno his pupil, and on the other, Antiochus' claim (as reported in
Cicero) of turning to the 'Old Academy' for doctrinal guidance, that is, to Polemo. Polemo's

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO'S TIMAEUS

views on cosmology look indeed like anticipations of Stoicism, w

distinct from it - eg. his physics is very much based on the Timae
passive principles, describing the passive in terms of the 'recep
Stoics, the active power is not identified with God.27
But there is more. What Sedley could have added to my min
evidence for Theophrastus' providential reading of the Tim. In
reports the following on the question of plurality of worlds (11.

[...] For Plato was either the only or the principal person to use
activity of providence (toû TipovooûvTOç) ein this connections
testifying truly on Plato's behalf in this at least (toûto ye KaÀ

It seems natural to take this final sentence of the fragmen

Theophrastus said. In other words, Theophrastus is said to
argument for the thesis that 'the world is one from singleness o
as an 'explanation from the activity of providence' and this is
position (though Proclus' toûto ye KaXûç indicates that the sta
to make it go his way).
Moreover, in Metaph. 5b26-6a2, in discussing the first principle
to attribute providential concern to the first principle in Plato wit
29E:

... for surely that which is first and most divine is something that wishes for everything
for the best.28

From these indications it would seem that a providential reading of the Timaeus in
Theophrastus is even better supported than seemed likely from Sedley's intriguing argument.29
In sum, not only do we find Epicurus as one of the 'early interpreters' on the Timaeus in
a way that is partly based on Aristotelian and Theophrastean objections, but we also
encounter an independent contemporary parallel which gives us a possible glimpse of how
the Timaeus might have been read under the last 'dogmatic' head of school, Polemo. It
reinforces a picture of a broad reaction to the Timaeus in different quarters outside the
Academy, which adds to our knowledge of the reading of Plato's work in the Academy.

4. The Neoplatonist interest in Theophrastus: going beyond the DS

The aim of this final section is to review the evidence found in later (Neo-)Platonist
philosophers referring to Theophrastus' comments on the Timaeus. These offer a good

27 R. W. Sharpies, 'Counting Plato's Principles', in The passionate intellect, essays on the transformation of classical
traditions presented to Professori . G. Kidd, ed. L. Ayres (New Brunswick 1995: R(utgers) U(niversity) S(tudies) in
C(lassical) H(umanities), vol. 7) 67-82 discusses the issue of the different number of principles attributed to Plato in
different sources. His suggestion with regard to Theophrastus' reading is that it might be responding to the criticism
of Aristotle that Plato's cosmology lacks an efficient cause.

I owe this point to J. Dillon's analysis in Theophrastus' critique of the Old Academy in the Metaphysics ', in On
the Opuscula of Theophrastus, eds. W. W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle (Stuttgart 2002) 175-187 (179).
For the readings of the early Stoics and Posidonius see Reydams-Schils, Demiurge and Providence , above n.2, chs.
1-2.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 61

opportunity to consider Theophrastus' role in the later tradition. The discussi

Theophrastean fragment above makes the transition to our next section quite easy.
briefly go over some recent work on Theophrastus' role in the early tradition be
at the commentaries on the Timaeus.

4.1 Current research is still producing new insights into the transmission of the material
originating in Theophrastean works. The research in the Peripatetic school, producing vast
collections of information, has no doubt been beneficial to following generations. It is
becoming clear that Theophrastus' groundwork of creating overviews on many topics were
exploited as useful reference books in later times.30 The most recent strand of transmission
to have been clarified is the one linked to Epicurus, who in his meteorology and
'doxographical' reports relied on Theophrastus' (puoiKai ôóÇai.31 There is also reason to
believe that Cicero preserved some useful pieces of information in his doxography in the
Lucullus.32 In addition, a persuasive case has been made for an early version of a
placita-collection known to Chrysippus and his audience.33 Later authors who may have had
(indirect) access to some works relevant to physiology are Galen34 and perhaps Sextus
Empiricus. But here more work is needed to establish the nature and stages of transmission.
Henry Blumenthal35 once expressed a paradox about Theophrastus' role in the later
tradition: The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been
that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could
nevertheless be ignored on most matters'. Now this was said with particular reference to
commentators writing on Aristotle On the Soul , but I think it would be misleading to
generalize this view, especially on the basis of recent work, and I hope I can at least present
some evidence to back that up.

4.2 I want to start with the interaction between Academy and Peripatos. There is good
evidence that the early Academy was interested in Peripatetic discussions of Plato's views.
The non-literal interpretation of the genesis of the world by Xenocrates and Speusippus is no

30 An aspect hardly studied in this context is the question to what extent argumentative patterns (esp. objections)
became stock material for the discussion of issues related to perception and epistemology. For a first attempt to
uncover these see H. Baltussen, Theophrastean echoes? The De sensibus in the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition
(Alexander, Alcinous, Plotinus)', in On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, eds. W. W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wöhrle
(Stuttgart 2002) 39-58.
31 J. Mansfeld, ' Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and beyond)', in Theophrastus: his
psychological, doxographical and scientific writings , eds W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas (New Brunswick 1992:
RUSCH vol.5) 63-111; id., 'Epicurus Peripateticus', in Studi di filosofia antica. Realtà e ragione , ed. A. Alberti
(Florence 1994) 29-47; Sedley, Lucretius , above n.24, ch. 6.

32 See fr. 240 FHS&G and J. Mansfeld, 'Gibt es Spuren von Theophrasts Phys. Op. bei Cicero?', in Cicero's
Knowledge of the Peripatos , eds. W. W. Fortenbaugh and P. Steinmetz (New Brunswick-London 1989: RUSCH vol.
4) 133-58.
33 J. Mansfeld, 'Chrysippus and the Placita', Phronesis 34 (1990) 31 1-42.

Cf. R. W. Sharpies, Theophrastus on Tastes and Smells', in Theophrastus ofEresus: On his life and work , eds.
W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, and A.A. Long (New Brunswick 1985: RUSCH vol. 2) 183-204.
35 Blumenthal, Aristotle and Neoplatonismy above n.4, 10.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
62 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

doubt a reaction against Aristotle's literal reading.36 Theophra

considered the Academic reading, as we shall see shortly, thou
not entirely harmonious.
Further reports in later (Middle and Neo-) Platonists contain
and his interpretative suggestions regarding Plato's views
Timaeus?1 A significant number of these references to Plato (1
the Theophrastean collection of fragments under 'Physics' or
Since they range from Taurus (2nd century AD) to Philoponus
testimony to the lasting interest in Theophrastus' comments, b
in the interpretative tradition of the Academy which in fact star
The earliest evidence that Theophrastus' comments on the Tim
the Platonic tradition comes from a work by Alcinous entitled
Plato's Philosophy from the 2nd/3rd century AD. It exhibits, as
subtle signs of adopting Theophrastus' summarizing passages fr
out that Alcinous (as many later Platonists) often uses 'mirror
in which an author made slight changes in word order as a ped
attention. Whittaker also found that Alcinous must have taken th
from Theophrastus.39 Since these passages have been well des
Whittaker and myself) I shall here only give a brief summary of
Whittaker' s original thesis is based on numerous examples a
assumption that this kind of variatio could only work because t
very well known. In some cases all that happens is change in word
the wording of the paraphrase of Plato's text which attracts atten
this also can be shown to have happened where the sequen
represents the order of DS , not that of Tim . (eg. Plato Tim. 62
could also be a change of vocabulary and syntax, such as part
which again tie DS and Didask. closer together (eg. Plato Tim. 6
explanation of why Alcinous would have preferred to take the T
than Plato himself, is given by John Dillon who in his English t
point states (DS 83 = 524.26-8 Diels): 'we may once again see the
De sensu , [...] Plato's rather expansive treatment of this topi
scholastic purposes, and Theophrastus was useful here'.41

36 See J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (2nd edn London 1996; 1st edn 1977) 7 (
54). A contemporary Platonist Crantor, whom Proclus labels the first éÇr)YTTCT1<
'created' as 'dependent on a cause other than itself (Proclus, In Tim. 1 277.8, se
37 Cf. Baltussen, Theophrastus , above n.6, ch. 4, and next note.
38 Edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharpies and D. Gutas,
(Leiden 1992) = FHS&G, see frr. 142, 159, 161 A and 230, 241 A, 241B, 242, 2
39 J. Whittaker, 'Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire', AN
'The value of indirect tradition', above n.16, 74 (further examples in the app. f
40 The text of DS will be quoted according to H. Diels' edition in Doxograph
41 J. Dillon, A Icinous: the Handbook ofPlatonism (Oxford 1993) 145, comm. t
elaborate and poetic prose are typical of Theophrastus' treatment in DS (see Ba
ch. 4). See also Dillon, Alcinous, 123, 138, 142, 143f. discussing the connection

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 63

While in both cases discussed the wording is unmistakably closer to Theophrast

Plato's, this is perhaps not the kind of influence one would consider important.42
it is most likely that the influence is indirect.43 But at least it shows that the treatis
at some point after its composition. Add to this that a (near-) contemporary Alexand
seen to use Theophrastus, and it is tempting to infer that Theophrastean material
some from the DS, experienced something of a revived interest in the second a
century AD.44

4.3 The later tradition from here on gives us a limited number of examples, but they are
explicit in invoking Theophrastus. On account of the topics discussed it is clear that none of
these reports could have originated in the DS (assuming we have a more or less complete text
of the latter).45 Most references are still awaiting analysis. They are roughly of two types: on
the one hand they report a specific comment on a detail which has been preserved as coming
from Theophrastus; on the other, they seem to want to engage with the report, that is, there
is not simply an antiquarian or topical interest in the passage, but also an argumentative one.
This is not the place to analyze them all in detail, so I have selected the following references
as being of special interest to our discussion of the Timaeus. It will be useful to look at some
in more detail (taking them roughly in chronological order).
We have three testimonia (la- le) from Calvenus Taurus' first book of his commentary on
the Timaeus who lived in Athens around the mid 2nd century AD. They are all preserved in
Philoponus, Against Proclus on the eternity of the world in his 'sixth argument' (144.16 ff.
Rabe), in which a number of previous views are reported. Philoponus clearly takes the
references to Theophrastus from Taurus (whose name only occurs in this part of the work).
These passages exhibit a specific interest in the ongoing debate about the eternity of the
world, and present us with interesting details of the approach towards Plato. In the first text
(la) we see that, apart from reporting Plato's views, there is mention of objections and
speculations formulated by Theophrastus. I have added the two preceding sentences in the
translation to provide the background and motivation for Theophrastus' presence here:
(la) Taurus ap. Philopon. Adv. Proci, vi 8 (145.20-4 Rabe) [= 241A FHS&G]:

[...] Kai ôeóíppaoToç jaévxoi év rõllepi xcbv çvoikõv ôoÇcòv Konrà IIAarcová (prļoi
Y6VT1TÒV TÒV KÓQ1JOV K(XÌ OVTCO 7T018ÎTCCI Tàç êvOTaOClÇ, 7îap8|Ll(paÎV8l ôè ÖTI ïaO)Ç
oacpT1veíaç x<*Plv YevrFÓv airròv ímoTÍúexoci.

42 But it is worth pointing out that it was by paying attention to the Alcinous version of the Timaeus passages that
Whittaker was able to correct the text in DS 84, reading Ttópouç for xupoúç (525.6 D. rendering Plato's Tim. 65d2
zà (pÀépia), as in Didask. 174.30 Hermann (see Whittaker 'Platonic Philosophy', above n.39, 104 and cf. H.
Baltussen, Theophrastus on Theories of Perception: Argument and Purpose in the De sensibus [Utrecht 1993], 256.)
43 (The following comment is reproduced from Baltussen Theophrastean echoes', above n.30). In a letter in which
he kindly answered some queries on this topic John Whittaker wrote to me (received by fax on November 25, 1991):
'my own opinion is that Alcinous found these Theophrastean reminiscences already to hand in the presumably Middle
Platonist handbooks of which he made direct use in compiling his own account ... That Alcinous found it convenient
to base his own Platonic handbook on other more or less recent handbooks certainly tells us something of contemporary
methods of composition'; cf. Dillon, Alcinous, above n.41, 143.
44 Other authors who could be used to support this hypothesis are Sextus Empiricus (2nd century AD), Galen (2nd/3rd
century AD), and Diogenes Laertius (2nd/3rd century AD). See also Baltussen Theophrastean echoes', above n.30.
45 See Baltussen, The purpose of Theophrastus' De sensibus ', above n.17.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

(It being a matter of debate whether the world is in Pla

philosophers have had different opinions on the matter. Aristo
describes the world as generated because Timaeus says that i
indeed, there is a work of his [sc. of Timaeus] in circulation on the universe as
[something] generated.) Theophrastus however in his On the Physical Tenets , says that
the universe has an origin according to Plato, and makes his objections accordingly (ràç
èvoTáoeiç). But he (also) suggests that perhaps (Plato) adopts the hypothesis that it has
an origin for the sake of clear exposition (ïacoç oa(pr|veíaç x^piv).

This is a key text for establishing the title of the major work on his predecessors in physics,
(puaiKOÙ ôóÇai, but it is also important for mentioning objections as part of the procedure
in that work.46 What the report does not provide is a reason why not more is reported from
the work, so it is uncertain whether Taurus had the whole collection available. But if he did,
he may have found a wealth of arguments aimed against views (taken) from the Timaeus.
It is of some interest to see how Philoponus handles and interprets this passage. In the
section following this quote from Taurus, he states:47

(lb) We learned from this passage that many other philosophers, including Theophrastus,
have said the same things about Plato [as Aristotle and Alexander did]. Admittedly
Theophrastus, as [Taurus] states, attempted to defend Plato on the ground that he may
have put forward the hypothesis that [the world] is generated for clarity's sake. But this
same Taurus later shows us Theophrastus refuting such a hypothesis.

Philoponus is of course prone to show that they all agree. But note how he is trying to claim
that Theophrastus follows Aristotle, thus showing that these testimonies' corroborate his
own reading in demonstrating Plato's position. Here is what he says soon after the passage
quoted above:
(lc) Taurus ap. Philopon. De aetern . mundi contra Proci vi 27. 5 [= 241B FHS&G, with
added context]:

(It was Plato's practice to present things in the process of development for the sake of
exposition. In the Republic too he shows the city as it develops so that the origins of
justice will become clearer during its establishment.) Theophrastus , after remarking that
'perhaps he describes it as generated for the sake of clarity, in the way that we follow
diagrams as they develop', continues 'but perhaps generation is not of the same nature
in the case of diagrams'. (And he is saying the same thing as Aristotle , for he too says
that in the case of diagrams it is possible to assume [the presence of] opposites at the start
but that it is not possible in the case of the generation of the world, ... In the
circumstances I think that both [our own] argument and the testimony of philosophers

46 This aspect is used to argue that his DS is a part of this overview. For remaining obstacles of such an (attractive)
interpretation see Baltussen, The purpose of Theophrastus' De sensibus' above n.17. On the title see Mansfeld, 'Gibt
es Spuren', above n.32; id., 'Doxographical studies, Quellenforschung, tabular presentation and other varieties of
comparativism', in Fragmentsammlungen philosophischer Texte der Antike, eds W. Burkert et al. (Göttingen 1998:
Aporemata 3) 16-40.
47 Trans. M. Share, Philoponus Against Proclus on the Eternity of the World (part 1) (London 2003), modified.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 65

as to Plato's position have adequately demonstrated to all save those who a

irremediably contentious and put the truth second to their own desires that Plato did
mean to say that the existence of the world was without a beginning but on the contr
assigned a beginning to its existence.)

This looks very much like an argument from authority, to back up one's own view with
of the 'great thinkers' of the past.48 Note how the 'perhaps' (and its possible implicat
Theophrastus' remark on diagrams is ignored - possibly picking up on the fa
Theophrastus' ïocoç (a much used phrase amounting to a mannerism) is often a very
or empty qualifier.
Compare now (Id) Taurus ap. Philop. De aetern. mundi contra Proci, xiii. 15 (520.
Rabe) [= 161 A FHS&G]:

The Craftsman took fire and earth as his starting-points in the construction of
universe; it is necessary for what is to become corporeal, to offer resistance to the
and to be visible (Tim. 31b-c) [...] Theophrastus says '[i] If what is visible and tan
is composed of earth and fire, [ii] (then) the heavenly bodies and the heaven wil
composed of these; but they are not'. This he says bringing in the fifth bodily subs
that moves in a circle.

Here we are presented with an incomplete syllogistic argument (if ..., <then>...; but ...) on the
constituent parts of the heavens. It establishes a tentative objection by Theophrastus against
Plato by denying that one can transfer onto the heavenly bodies a general regularity of the
relationship between two elements and the physical features they produce in a body. At Tim .
31b-c Plato had argued that the elements earth and fire determine the physical qualities of the
visible world (visible, tangible) - in particular the heavenly bodies. The argument is
incomplete, because the premiss [i'] 'the heavenly bodies and the heaven are visible (?and
tangible)' is suppressed; the last part of the quote states an alleged fact in negated form,
followed presumably with a comment that the heavenly bodies are made of the fifth element
(no explanation given). Again it seems an argument from authority on Philoponus' part,
although here a 'negative' one, in that Philoponus goes on to quote from Taurus (521.12-24)
and also Porphyry (521.24-522.23) who defend the four-element constitution of the universe
against Theophrastus and Aristotle. In other words, here is an authority worth refuting
according to Taurus, and Philoponus agrees.

(2) Our next text comes from the 2nd century AD Platonist Plutarch, who wrote his
Platonic Questions (ZrļTTļjLiocTcc IRaTomicá) in the tradition of the questions and problems
literature. At PQ VIII, 1006C [= fr. 243 FHS&G; cf. Numa xi] he attributes to Theophrastus
a report on Plato with regard to his geocentric view. The immediate context deals with the
question what Plato meant by 'souls sown in the earth and moon'. The report is tagged on
ÍTtpooioTopeii to the analysis, which is in fact a series of questions (tr. Cherniss):

48 This may seem trivial, but it is of some importance to see what the function of the quotation is. As I have pointed
out elsewhere (H. Baltussen, 'Philology or philosophy? Simplicius on the use of quotations', in Epea and grammata:
oral and written communication in ancient Greece , ed. 1. Worthington [vol. 4, Leiden 2002] 173-89), Simplicius
would object to this kind of use of quotations (i.e. as a demonstration), as he clearly states in In Ph. 1318.10-15 Diels.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 66 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

Theophrastus even adds the observation that Plato, when

of having assigned to the earth as not befitting her the m
things.

As to what the source of the remark might be we can only guess. Chronologically it is not
impossible that Theophrastus would have heard such a remark from Plato - he came to
Athens as a young man in the 360s. But it is likely to be an apocryphal story. Cherniss points
out that the Piatita still have the geocentric view (Aëtius 3.15.10). So Plutarch does not get
his information from the 3>uoik<xi ôóÇai (cf. text la). When Aristotle does argue against a
view on the centre of the earth it is against the Phaedo 1 1 lc-1 13c where it consists of water.
In fact the whole Question combines several issues: the self-motion of the stars (incl. the
infamous question on whether Plato meant the earth stands still or moves around an axis) and
their role as 'instruments of time'. Regarding this question Plutarch's treatment, as Cherniss
points out (Loeb ad loc.), only considers two possible options, one that the earth is stationary,
the other that it 'revolves around the axis common to all the planetary orbits' (78-9) leaving
out the option that the earth is centrally positioned around its own axis.
But as to Theophrastus' testimony, Cherniss is very dismissive. In his Aristotle's Criticism
of Plato and the Academy (Baltimore, 1944) he writes a long note (appendix VIII, 545-64)
in which he argues that this report is not very plausible (esp. 561-4), since we have no
indication of this change of mind in Aristotle. Plato might have wanted to say that fire was
a better and worthier candidate to be in the middle of the universe. Cherniss finds it most
likely that Theophrastus mistook Aristotle, De cáelo 293a27-bl as a reference to Plato, and
'finding no such theory in Plato's writings, explained this discrepancy by supposing that
Plato in his old age had given oral expression to his change of opinion' (Cherniss, Aristotle's
Criticism , 564). Whatever the truth, what is significant is that Plutarch found this a comment
worth mentioning.

(3) Proclus, In Tim. II 120.8-22 [= fr. 159 FHS&G]49 provides further interesting material,
in which we see Theophrastus rebuke Plato for wanting to find a reason (asking ôià tí) for
everything. Such a fundamental issue is typical of the Peripatetics (cf. Aristotle on
Democritus in G A 742b 17 ff.) and tallies well with considerations expressed in several places
on methodological and metaphysical questions. To give but two examples, such comments
are compatible with Theophrastus' remarks in his Metaphysics when he ponders the nature
and role of principles (àpxaí):
(3a) Metaph. 6b 1 Iff.:

Plato in reducing things to the ruling principles ... one might ask how ... we should
conceive of the ruling principles, whether shapeless and as it were merely potential ... or
already possessed of shape ...

(3b) Metaph. 9bl-24 (esp. 1-6):

This also is a question impossible or at any rate not easy to answer, up to what point and
of what things we should search for causes, alike in the case of sensibles and of

49 One further text in Proclus, In Tim. 1 456.6-18 Diehl [= fr. 242 FHS&G]) speaks of one world explained from
activity of providence. See above, 60.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 67

intelligible objects; for the infinite regress is in both cases inappropriate an

to thought. Both kind of objects are in a sense starting-points.

Clearly, these concerns about regress and reductive moves in explanation wer
Theophrastus and as text (3a) shows, especially with regard to Plato.50 Her
some awareness of the all-pervading teleological tendency of Plato's account
(unlike the DS where this is entirely ignored).51
Finally two further passages deserve attention, both for their close link with
discussed. In the first Simplicius reports on the Timaeus as a 'likely accoun
Àoyíav) of the physical world, indicating that Theophrastus expressed a view
of natural science, a theme closely connected to limits of teleology and th
method for a discipline:

(4a) Simplicius, In Ph. 18.29-34 [= fr. 142 FHS&G]:

Plato was right to call natural science 'an account of probabilities' (eÍKOTo
Tim. 29c) and Aristotle too bears witness with him, wanting demonstration
principles which are immediate and credible in themselves (éÇ à|ueoG)v Kai o
àpxôv) ... But natural science is not for this reason to be scorned (oi)K ocT
toûto (puoioÀoyíav), but we should be satisfied with what is in accordanc
nature and capacity (cdÀ' àpiceîoôai XP"*! KOCTà tt)v rļjueTepav cpi
ôiivajLiiv), as Theophrastus thinks too.

As we saw, he also spoke about Plato's two principles (26.5-15 Diels, a

FHS&G). Theophrastus' comment is very brief and merely added for persuasi
itself it is somewhat obscure, but again it expresses the kind of resignation an
limits that we find elsewhere.52 Important comments closely related to th
regarding first principles are found in Proclus:

(4b) Proci. In Tim. 35E, II 120.8-22 Diehl [=fr. 159 FHS&G]-

Some of the early philosophers criticized Plato saying 'he is not right to se
principle of what is (itself) a principle ... For just as the person who thinks tha
can be demonstrated does away with demonstration itself...' Such are The

50 For a more detailed account on the criticisms in Theophrastus Metaph. see the illuminating
'Theophrastus' critique', above n.28, especially 183-84. On (3a) Dillon suggests that some of the m
'unwritten doctrines'. Would Proclus think this too, I wonder?

51 On these issues related to principles see especially A. Laks, 'Le début d'une physique: Ordre, e
des fragments 142-144 A/B de Théophraste', in Theophrastus of'Eresus. A Reappraisal of the So
Ophuijsen and M. Van Raalte (New Brunswick 1998: RUSCH vol. 8) 143-69; F. De Haa
Theophrastus on composition in nature', ibid. 171-89; cf. R.W. Sharpies, Theophrastus ofEresus: s
writings, thought and influence, commentary volume 3.1, sources on physics (Leiden 1998) 96-97
qualifications on teleology see L. Repici, 'Limits of teleology in Theophrastus' Metaphysics
182-213.

52 Cf. Regenbogen, 'Theophrasť, above n.3, col. 1554: 'Es bereitet sich mit Th. im Philosophen ein Gelehrten-typus
vor, der gerade mit dem wachsenden Erkenntnisumfang eine leichte Resignation bezüglich der Möglichkeit letzter
synthetischer Erkenntnisse verbindet.'

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 68 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

criticisms of Plato concerning the account of the creation o

ôeóíppaoiroç tcò IIAcćtg)vi rcepi Trjoôe rrjç ilxuxoy
should not enquire into the reason 'why' in the case of natu
absurd, he says, to be puzzled as to why fire burns and why

The provenance of Proclus' text may be a different one from th

b), since the examples on fire and snow, however typical for T
his Metaph. Still, what we get is a consistent picture of Theop
and to Plato's views. It is therefore safe to say that Theophra
tendencies' is mostly critical of Plato, albeit in such a manner
What can we say as to the transmission of the material in thes
that Taurus and Plutarch wrote commentaries on (parts of)
mentary of course is extant).53 It is therefore very likely tha
Theophrastus from passages which exhibited a particular inte
of course go too far to say that Theophrastus produced a co
would comment upon relevant aspects within the context of
certain topic. Bob Sharpies has plausibly suggested that frr. 2
159 (esp. 11.1-8 and 31-2) come from Theophrastus' On the h
(puoiKCĆ.54 That would be an appropriate context to discuss
constitution of the heavens, the position of the earth, and th
principles. At any rate, they certainly bear witness to Theop
dialogue with Plato's views.
The passages quoted should also be significant for how his r
especially given that the reports retain his name as an indication
like many of the references in later sources in which he is men
breath (eg. with Aristotle or Eudemus). What reason could t
Theophrastus' contribution was significant and sufficiently
Aristotle's? It may very well be that we have too little to go o
fragments.
The existence of certain evidence for Theophrastus' involvement with the Timaeus , found
almost exclusively in the later Platonic tradition, presents us with a difficult problem. It
means that Platonists were interested in the discussion of Plato's views even if they were
from a Peripatetic, thus taking him very seriously in his comments on Plato. I would argue
that my point about the arguments from authority supports this. This presents us with a
discrepancy if we now compare this perception of Theophrastus with the impression one gets
from the DS (as discussed in the first part). Blumenthal's quote I gave earlier (p. 61) had a
follow-up remark. He suggested as a possible reason for the relative neglect in the
commentaries on the De anima that Theophrastus gave no help to those seeking to impose
Platonist constraints on Peripatetic psychology'. I think the passages we have looked at are
not in danger of receiving such a judgement. They report a view briefly or carefully add a

53 For Taurus see Dillon, The Middle Platonists , above n.36, 240; for Plutarch see J. Opsomer, In search of the truth.
Academic tendencies in Middle Platonism (Brussels 1998).
54 Sharpies, Theophrastus ofEresus, above n.51, 97 n. 267. In fr. 159 FHS&G Proclus actually refers to On the
Heavens. That reference (11. 31-2) could have been added to the preceding material, so that it is not absolutely certain
that 11. 1-8 are from the same Theophrastan work as 11. 31-2.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN BALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 69

certain interpretation. Apparently both their interest and their evidence was
sources do not express any regret over either.
Taking this one step further a conclusion looms which I am uneasy about. It
clear that Theophrastus' approach as it transpires in the DS is not representat
and his thought at all. I have stated this on earlier occasions, but was unab
reason other than the dialectical context. From our perspective the discrepan
material from DS on the one hand, and that in the (neo-)Platonists on the other
the latter he seems well-informed, focussed and at times genuinely engaged
material. In the DS he is tendentious, contentious and 'curiously inaccu
Lucretius , above n.24, 76 n.). Should we conclude that DS is not Theophrastu
our judgement about his method applies modern criteria (eg. for accurate rep
think drawing that conclusion would not be justified. That leaves us the dial
as responsible for the slanted representation of the Platonic material. We m
exactly how reliable the Neoplatonic reports are - they are probably very sel
there seems to be little reason to doubt their succinct references, which signifi
criticism of Plato. The discrepancy which does exist between the DS and the e
it thus seems to discredit DS once more as a useful testimony for Theophrast
among the later Platonists his views from other works clearly served a purpo
testifies to his reputation as an authoritative voice in the Timaeus exegesis.

5. Conclusions

In this paper I set out to do three things: to study some early reactions to the Timaeus outside
the Academy, to explore the value of these as precursors of the formal commentary, and to
re-evaluate the perception of Theophrastus in the process. On all three counts the results of
the discussion are quite interesting. Four points should be noted here:

1. The early reactions to the Timaeus start in Plato's own day and continue for centuries.
Whether for criticism or clarification, many contemporaries and immediate followers already
saw themselves forced to try and clarify the work. We noted that as 'unsympathetic'
interpreters of Plato Theophrastus and Epicurus found much at fault in the cosmologica
dialogue. Obviously they measured him with criteria based on their own system of thought.
But their critical comments presuppose a certain degree of interpretation. Whether we think
they do not do justice to the Timaeus is irrelevant: polemic implies a presumption to under-
stand what the author means. But while all commentary is interpretation, not all interpretation
is commentary (yet).

2. What the early reactions seem to have in common is a partial use of the Timaeus , a trend
which continued for a long time (eg. Posidonius, Alcinous, Galen),56 before in the 2nd to 5th
century AD the Platonists came to write continuous and full-blown commentaries on the

55 I believe this conclusion reinforces my argument in 'The purpose of Theophrastus' De sensibus' above n. 17. 1 lack
the space and time to discuss another well-known discrepancy between DS and CP 6. 1 , where the account of flavours
in the Timaeus (though rejected) is almost a literal rendering of Plato. Here too a context-dependent approach may b
the explanation, see H. Baltussen, 'Theophrastus, De causis plantarum (Loeb 474, 475)', in Mnemosyne 4.46 (1993
107-09(109).
56 See C. J. Larrain, Galens Kommentar zu Platons Timaios , Stuttgart 1992.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
70 ANCIENT APPROACHES TO PLATO' S TIMAEUS

Timaeus , eg. perhaps Calvenus Taurus; certainly the grea

Proclus; Calcidius' Latin commentary is slightly earlier, but
so in a different tradition.

It seems to have started in Aristotle's time, and one might p

as a whole was just the last of a synthetic attempt to draw
model, whereas Aristotle and Theophrastus initiated an app
an analytic way, which brought with it a sense of limit a
prevented creating all-englobing synthetic models of the kind
all, in Diogenes Laertius' list of works for Aristotle we find a
from the Timaeus (and from Archytas).57

3. As to the emergence of commentary, this requires a sep

from hindsight may prove useful for a preliminary comme
formal features of commentaries as they are known in late an
checklist of features, I suspect the following would be amon

(i) Attempt to understand (better) or elucidate another thi

(ii) Ideally this is a self-conscious and explicit attempt at in

commentator sees the commenting as a goal in itself (as o

(iii) The clarification is based on a text.

(iv) It usually follows the order of the commented text ('run

(v) (advanced stages) The interpretative act uses formalize

of issues.59 (cf. G. Most, Kommentare-Commentaries (Gö

The examples of 'interpretative polemic' we have reviewed

points, but obviously it will take further research to distingui
between these kinds of interpretation.
Are these precursors of formal commentary? In a sense th
elaborate on the beginnings of exegesis and commentary. Wha
set of examples which can be exploited to enquire into this
formal commentary as a written discourse has recogn
suggestions that have been made by scholars as to the 'why'

57 D.L. 5.25 [= DK 47A13] xà ćk toö Tipaíou kcù tóùv * ApXDteíwv a' (n

sc. writings [?]). For the formula of an ¿TtiTopiļ as xà BK ..., see I. Opelt, '
Christentum 5 (1962) 944-73 (946 and n. 109). Another famous example of
Herodotus by (Theophrastus' contemporary) Epicurus preserved in D.L. 10.3
a summary of his own Physics. For the meaning of ¿tuto|ji1 as 'summary
Runia, Aëtiana, vol.1 The sources (Leiden 1997) 182-84.
58 For another exploration of material in Plato relevant to this question {
forthcoming paper mentioned above n. 1 .

59 Compare the list of 'introductory issues' (oxi1h<xtcc eioaywyiKa) in

settled before the study of an author, or a text (Leiden 1994).

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 HAN B ALTUSSEN: POLEMIC AND EXEGESIS IN THEOPHRASTUS & EPICURUS 7 1

are not very satisfactory to my mind.60 I note that both the chronolo
characterization of early critical writings are in need of a clear historical an
analysis, while differentiating the evidence we still have in a more fine-grained m
justice to their character. If we do not think early forms of commentary existed
of the evidence presented here, we should consider a further body of eviden
already mentioned and recently found papyrus from Derveni and also the var
about the exegetical and polemical activities of the Academy, Peripatos,
Epicureans of the post-Platonic era.61

4. Finally, the question of how Theophrastus is and was perceived. Even if mu

Theophrastus' comments on Plato, the fact that the Platonists took him seriousl
for something. It is his sad fate that in many areas his work does not survive,
often only implicitly present (as in the Epicurus - Lucretius connection, or with t
text). Several other threads of comments on a related topic by Theophrastus s
should prove useful for balancing certain quick and ready judgements. On the o
fragments, published in 1992, are still being evaluated and commented upon. W
note that this set of texts from FHS&G again illustrates the difficulty of allocatin
to specific headings: the texts on the Timaeus are found in the section 'fragments
as well as fragments on physical doxography'. Though we saw that the mate
does not come from one work discussing the Timaeus , some of them may belong
section (or in both).
In certain sociological models academics are sometimes divided into three c
finders, minders, and grinders, that is, the pioneers, the guardians and the
Theophrastus will not be viewed as just a Tinder', he should also not be view
'minder'. To me the evidence suggests he was both.

King 's College London/University of Adelaide

60 Cf. Dillon The Middle Platonists , above n.36, 437 'it is only in the generation of Eudorus [i.e.
the tradition of formal commentary on both Plato and Aristotle seems to begin'; ibid. 43 it seems to ha
[i.e. 3rd cent. BC] who wrote 'the first formal commentary as a Platonist on a work of Plato
Aristotelismus bei den Griechen (3 vols) vol.1 (Berlin 1973) starts his chapter 'Die ältesten Komme
Andronicus (1st. century BC); J. Barnes et al., Alexander of Aphrodisias On Prior Analytics 1.1-8
speak of the works by Theophrastus and Eudemus as 'interpretations or exegeses of Aristotle, in a
add 'but there is no reason to believe that they wrote commentaries on his writings'; in J. Barnes, 'Met
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 10 (1992) 267-281 (270) it is stated that 'philosophical comm
at least to the third century BC [Crantor? HB]; and there were probably Aristotelian commentaries by
BC'.

61 A very selective number of examples for increase of exegetical works and written output in general are: (Academy
Arcesilaus is called <piÀoypá|j|Liai;oç (D.L. 4.30), Crantor writes Cmopviļnaia 'notebooks' (D.L. 3.24, cf. D.L. 5
on Aristotle); (Peripatos) many titles testify to polemical works e.g. IIpòç là MeXíooou a', IIpòç xà ' AÀKfjaicûvo
a', IIpòç toÍ)ç nuúayopeíouç a', IIpòç ta Topyioi) a', IIpòç tà Eevoípávouç a', IIpòç Tà Zi1V0)V0ç a' (D.L.
Heracleides wrote a work IIpòç tòv AīļļjoKpiTov éÇriyiíoeiç a' (D.L. 5.88); (Stoics) Cleanthes D.L. 7.174 t
'HpaKÀeÍTOU éÇTiYiíoeiç, léooapa; IIpòç AripÓKpiTOv; IIpòç * Apíotapxov; IIpòç "HpiAAov/ Sphaerus D
7.178 Ilepi, ' HepaKÀeÍTOi) Tiévxe öiatpißcov / Chrysippus D.L. 7.187 oúyypa|Li|Lia Ilepi TÔ)v àpxaíco
cpuoioAoycov; 189 évóo^óiaxa Tà ßißAia; (Epicureans) D.L. 10.26 Epicurus is cpiÀoypa(po5Tatoç and Ttáv
imepPáÀÀ01jevoç 7tĀ/rļūei ßißAicov; Hermarchus writes a IIpòç HÀcctíova (D.L. 10.25). Admittedly the prepositi
itpóç does not always and necessarily mean 'against' but rather 'in reaction to'. I believe that this material would prof
from evaluation in the light of the emergence of exegesis and am currently preparing further work on this theme.

This content downloaded from 128.122.31.26 on Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:42:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms