Element contents
Series: Elements in Ancient Philosophy
Theophrastus on First Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2026
Summary
Theophrastus' so-called Metaphysics presents a series of difficulties for various accounts of first principles, including Platonist ones but also – and especially – Aristotle's. Hence, many scholars think that Theophrastus abandons some of his teacher's core commitments, such as the prime mover or natural teleology. Other interpreters, by contrast, emphasize the aporematic character of the work and do not take Theophrastus to be truly critical of Aristotle. In the author's view, neither reading captures the character of the treatise. For, as argued in this Element, Theophrastus probes the Aristotelian account of first principles in earnest. But this is not to say that he abandons it. Rather, Theophrastus is an internal critic of an Aristotelian framework to which he himself is committed but of which he thinks that it requires further elaboration.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Ancient PhilosophyOnline ISBN: 9781009708289Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 02 April 2026
References
Baltussen, H. (2003). ‘Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: Polemic and Exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus’. In Sharples, R. W., and Sheppard, A., eds., Ancient Approaches to Plato’s Timaeus, London, 49–71.Google Scholar
Beere, J. (2003). ‘Counting the Unmoved Movers: Astronomy and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics XII.8’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 85, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, E. (2000). ‘Unmoved Mover(s) as Efficient Cause(s) in Metaphysics Λ 6’. In M. Frede, and D. Charles, eds., Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda, Oxford, 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, E. (2002). ‘Teofrasto e gli Accademici sul moto dei cieli’. In M. Migliori, , ed., Gigantomachia, Brescia.Google Scholar
Broadie, S. (1993). ‘Que fait le premier moteur d’Aristote?’. Revue philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger 183, 375–411.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. (2020). ‘Speusippus, Teleology, and the Metaphysics of Value: Theophrastus’ Metaphysics 11a18-26’. Journal of Hellenic Studies 140, 143–75.Google Scholar
Code, A. (1997). ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics as a Science of Principles’. Revue internationale de philosophie 51, 357–78.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. M. (1987). ‘Hypothetical Necessity and Natural Teleology’. In Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J., eds., Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, 243–74.Google Scholar
Corcilius, K. (2020). ‘Resuming Discussion of the Common Cause of Motion’. In C. Rapp, , and O. Primavesi, , eds., Aristotle’s De motu animalium, Oxford, 299–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devereux, D. (1988). ‘The Relationship between Theophrastus’ Metaphysics and Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 167–88.Google Scholar
Dillon, J. (2002), ‘Theophrastus’ Critique of the Old Academy in the Metaphysics’. In Fortenbaugh, W. W., and Wöhrle, G., eds., On the Opuscula of Theophrastus, Stuttgart, 175–87.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. (1988). ‘The Aporematic Character of Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 216–23.Google Scholar
Falcon, A., and Leunissen, M. (2015). ‘The Scientific Role of eulogos in Aristotle’s Cael. II.12’. In Ebrey, D., ed., Theory and Practice in Aristotle’s Natural Science, Cambridge, 217–40.Google Scholar
Falcon, A. (2024). The Architecture of the Science of Living Beings. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W. W., and Sharples, R. W. (1988). Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric. New Brunswick/Oxford.Google Scholar
Fortenbaugh, W. W., Huby, P. M., Sharples, R. W., and Gutas, D. (1993). Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Leiden/New York/Köln, 2 vols.Google Scholar
Frede, D. (1971). ‘Theophrasts Kritik am unbewegten Beweger des Aristoteles’. Phronesis 16, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. (2000). ‘Metaphysics Λ.1’. In M. Frede, and D. Charles, eds., Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda, Oxford, 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelber, J. (2021). ‘Teleological Perspectives in Aristotle’s Biology’. In Connell, S. M., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourinat, J.-B. (2015). ‘Les limites du finalisme chez Aristote et Théophraste’. In A. Jaulin, and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 149–77.Google Scholar
Hayduck, M. (1891). Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Metaphysica Commentaria. Berlin.Google Scholar
Horky, P. (2013). ‘Theophrastus on Platonic and “Pythagorean” Imitation’. Classical Quarterly 63: 686–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, P. (2015). ‘When was Theophrastus’ Metaphysics Written?’. In A. Jaulin, and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 5–15.Google Scholar
Isnardi Parente, M. (1971). ‘Théophraste, Metaphysica 6a23 ss.’. Phronesis 16: 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaulin, A. (2015). ‘Le meilleur et le contraire’. In A. Jaulin, and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 135–48.Google Scholar
Jaulin, A., and Lefebvre, D. (2015). La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories. Leuven.Google Scholar
Judson, L. (2015). ‘Aristotle’s Astrophysics’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 49, 151–92.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. (1985). ‘The Place of the Prime Mover in Aristotle’s Teleology’. In Gotthelf, A., ed., Aristotle on Nature and Living Things, Pittsburgh/Bristol, 183–205.Google Scholar
Katz, E. (2019). ‘Geometrical Objects as Properties of Sensibles: Aristotle’s Philosophy of Geometry’. Phronesis 64, 465–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, H. (1973). ‘Zum Standort der “Metaphysik” Theophrasts’. Zetesis, Festschrift für E. de Strycker, 206–14.Google Scholar
Laks, A. (1988). ‘Eurytus in Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 237–43.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, D. (2015). ‘Recherches péripatéticiennes sur le moteur immobile: Aristote et Théophraste’. In A. Jaulin, and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 37–69.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, D. (2017). ‘Energeia et entelekheia chez Théophraste’. Quaestio 17, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennox, J. G. (1985). ‘Theophrastus on the Limits of Teleology’. In Fortenbaugh, W. W., Huby, P. M., and Long, A. A., eds., Theophrastus of Eresus: On his Life and Works, New Brunswick / Oxford, 143–63.Google Scholar
Meister, S. (2023). ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z as First Philosophy’. Phronesis 68, 78–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meister, S. (2025). ‘Aristotle’s Nature-Bound Theology in Metaphysics Λ’. Phronesis 70, 204–44.Google Scholar
Menn, S. (2001). ‘Metaphysics Z 10–16 and the Argument-Structure of Metaphysics Z’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 21, 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, F. Jr. (2013). ‘Aristotle’s Divine Cause’. In Feser, E., ed., Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics, New York, 277–98Google Scholar
Most, G. W. (1988a). ‘The Relative Date of Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 224–33.Google Scholar
Most, G. W. (1988b). ‘Heraclitus DK 22 B 124 in Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 243–8.Google Scholar
van Ophuijsen, J. M., and van Raalte, M. (1998). Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources. New Brunswick/London.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, C. (2024). ‘Aristotle on the Cause of Unity: The Argument of Metaphysics H.3–6’. Phronesis 69, 123–57.Google Scholar
van Raalte, M. (1988). ‘The Idea of the Cosmos as an Organic Whole in Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 189–215.Google Scholar
van Raalte, M. (2015). ‘Theophrastus on Differences: Sense-Perception and the Search for Causes’. In A. Jaulin A., and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 89–121.Google Scholar
Repici, L. (1990). ‘Limits of Teleology in Theophrastus’ Metaphysics?’. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 72, 182–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, E. (1988). ‘Energeia in Aristotle and Theophrastus’. In W. W. Fortenbaugh, and R. W. Sharples, eds., Theophrastean Studies: On Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion, and Rhetoric, New Brunswick/Oxford, 233–7.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. (1998). ‘Theophrastus as Philosopher and Aristotelian’. In J. M. van Ophuijsen, and M. van Raalte, eds., Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, New Brunswick/London, 267–80.Google Scholar
Sharples, R. W. (2015). ‘Form and Matter in Theophrastus’ Metaphysics’. In A. Jaulin, and D. Lefebvre, eds., La Métaphysique de Théophraste: Principes et apories, Leuven, 71–88.Google Scholar
Skemp, J. B. (1969). ‘The Metaphysics of Theophrastus in Relation to the Doctrine of κίνησις in Plato’s Later Dialogues’. In Düring, I., ed., Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast, Heidelberg, 217–23.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (1998). ‘Is Theophrastus a Significant Philosopher?’. In J. M. van Ophuijsen, and M. van Raalte, eds., Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, New Brunswick/London, 203–22.Google Scholar
Theiler, W. (1958). ‘Die Entstehung der Metaphysik des Aristoteles mit einem Anhang über Theophrasts Metaphysik’. Museum Helveticum 15, 85–105.Google Scholar
Usener, H. (1861). ‘Zu Theophrast’s metaphysischem Bruckstück’. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 16, 259–81.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.