Aristotelianism in the First Century BCE: Xenarchus of Seleucia by Andrea Falcon (review)

The past few decades have been an excellent time to be interested in Peripatetic thought after Aristotle, as much work has been devoted to Theophrastus and other early Peripatetics, as well as to Alexander of Aphrodisias and the other Greek commentators on Aristotle. Falcon’s study of Xenarchus is an important addition to this growing body of work, one that admirably covers territory not treated elsewhere (or not so well). (I should mention that I have not seen M. Isnardi Parente’s Senocrate-Ermodoro: frammenti [Naples, 1982].)

The book has three parts 1. Xenarchus: The Man and his Work; 2. Texts, Translations, and Notes; 3. Reception. There is an introduction and a conclusion. In the introduction, Falcon discusses how Xenarchus has been treated by other scholars and in what sense he is a Peripatetic. Falcon writes: “The epithet ‘Peripatetic’ [from some sources] is best explained as an indication of his commitment to a careful study of Aristotle’s works . . . without the overriding goal of fidelity” (1–2). The precise nature of Xenarchus’ Aristotelianism is further discussed in part 1, an essay on the life and thought of Xenarchus and the intellectual context within which he worked (with a focus on the revival of interest in Aristotle in the first century b.c.e.). This is an excellent entry into the study of Xenarchus, who is usually known, if known at all, merely as a Peripatetic who objected to Aristotle’s conviction that celestial bodies were composed of a special fifth element.

The heart of the book, however, is part 2, which consists of two unequal sections. The first contains the text with translation of Aristotle, De Caelo 268b17–269b17. In his translation, Falcon has usefully italicized those lines that are the objects of Xenarchus’ criticisms. The second section (Xenarchus: The Testimonies, with no attempt to distinguish testimonia and fragmenta, a prudent decision) is further divided into five parts: Life (one testimony from Strabo); Physics (eleven from Simplicius’ commentary on De Caelo, and one from Julian the Emperor); Psychology (one from Aëtius via Stobaeus, and one from Philoponus); Ethics (one from Alexander of Aphrodisias); and the Timaeus (one from Proclus). For each testimony (T), the Greek (or in one case, Latin (T 15) is presented first, followed by Falcon’s translation, then by an analysis, and finally by notes geared toward lemmata. This would have been more user-friendly, however, had all of the texts been presented on one side with their translations on facing pages, followed by the commentary. Presentation aside, the translations are faithful to the Greek and in readable English, and the analyses and notes are superb, clarifying what is often dense and difficult material.

The accuracy of any account of Xenarchus depends in large part on the value of the sources from which the testimonies come. Falcon defends the reliability of Simplicius as a source for Xenarchus (2–4), although he could have expanded the discussion given this source’s importance. Nevertheless, he is careful with the sources (see for example 129–32, on Aëtius) and in general is a cautious scholar, as every editor of fragmentary material must be. A minor example: in in De Caelo 13.22 (T2), Simplicius’ πρὸς τὴν πέμπτην οὐσίαν is usually considered a title (Against the Fifth Substance); but Falcon—lacking sufficient support for such a reading—translates it without italics (defending his interpretation on 66–68).

For those new to Xenarchus, I present as an example the core of one of his objections to Aristotle. This is from T6 (Simpl. in De Caelo 24.21): “It is impossible for circular motion to be natural for a simple body, since in the simple bodies, which are uniform, all the parts have an equal speed, whereas in a circle [the parts] near the center are always slower than those near the periphery, since they move a shorter distance in the same [time period]” (90).

Given...