STAVROULA KIRITSI

Theophrastus introduces a new theme, which certainly broadens the horizon of the research of the Peripatos, but his approach is consistent with the Aristotelian scientific method. Usually, as a proof of Theophrastus’ (alleged) disloyalty to Aristotle, the so-called Metaphysics is mentioned: yet, as L. Repici has persuasively shown (Teofrasto: Metafisica [2013], especially pp. 9–46), it is difficult to consider this Theophrastean work as a document of anti-Aristotelian positions. Rather, it is a work focusing on aporia, which is a fundamental tool of dialectical investigation and a research method already theorised and widely employed by Aristotle. Theophrastus’ polemical target is rather the late Plato of the doctrine of principles and the Academic philosophers (Speusippus and Xenocrates: cf. G. Wöhrle, Theophrast von Eresos: Universalwissenschaftler im Kreis des Aristoteles und Begründer der wissenschaftlichen Botanik. Eine Einführung [2019], pp. 27 and 68–70). Finally, a mere suggestion and a line of enquiry: as in the Metaphysics (see e.g. 4a13, 4b8: εὐλογώτερον, 6b21: εὐλόγως), in the De odoribus (see e.g. 52: εὔλογον, 61: in the latter case I would not translate the adverb εὐλόγως as ‘obviously’, as S., p. 55, does) the occurrences of words related to εὔλογος / εὔλογον are interesting. From Diogenes Laërtius (4.29) we know that Arcesilaus was a pupil of Theophrastus; it is well known that the practical ‘criterion’ of εὔλογον plays a central role in Arcesilaus’ philosophy, and usually the interpreters (cf. e.g. A.M. Ioppolo, Opinione e scienza: il dibattito tra Stoici e Accademici nel III e nel II secolo a.C. [1986], pp. 128–9) rightly refer it back to Aristotle and the Stoics. I believe that a comprehensive survey of the occurrences of εὔλογος / εὐλόγως in Theophrastus’ works could be fruitful in order to verify if it is possible to assume some influence of the Peripatetic philosopher on Arcesilaus regarding the use of this terminology.

Arising out of a conference on ‘Eros in Ancient Greece’, the articles in this volume share a historicizing approach to the conventions and expectations of eros in the context of the polis, in the Archaic and Classical periods of ancient Greece. The articles focus on (post-Homeric) Archaic and Classical poetic genres – namely lyric poetry, tragedy, and comedy – and some philosophical texts by Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. They pursue a variety of issues, including: the connection between homosexual eros and politics; sexual practices that fell outside societal norms (aristocratic homosexuality, chastity); the roles of sophrosyne (self-control) and akrasia (incontinence) in erotic relationships; and the connection between eros and other socially important emotions such as charis, philia, and storge. The exploration of such issues from a variety of standpoints, and through a range of texts, allows us to place eros as an emotion in its socio-political context.