ORIGIN OF THE TERM METAPHYSICS

Paul Gerard Horrigan, Ph.D., 2009.

For quite a long time, many manuals of metaphysics held the view that the Greek title
(meaning what come after the physical), from which we get the term
metaphysics, (in Latin metaphysica)1 (from the Greek meaning literally after the physics),
originated from a mere shelving accident by Andronicus of Rhodes (first half of the first
century B.C.). It was commonly believed that Andronicus first gave the title the books which
follow the physics in his re-ordered edition of the opera omnia of Aristotle (384-322 B.C.),
where he placed the Stagirites fourteen books of first philosophy after those concerned with
physics, simply because he was unable to properly name and classify them. However, in the
middle half of the twentieth century this position came under fire with the publication of
scholarly studies by Paul Moraux,2 Hans Reiner,3 and Anton-Hermann Chroust.4 The last of
these scholars, A. H. Chroust of the University of Notre Dame, maintains that the designation
attributed by scholars to Andronicus of Rhodes which owes its origin to a library cataloguing
reference and, hence, to a mere accident born out of embarassment and practical necessitythis
fanciful storyborders on the incredible.5
Regarding the factual origin of the term metaphysics, Chroust gives us a number of
historical sources. Chroust mentions that both Nicholas of Damascus (flourished 2nd half of the
first century B.C.) and the illustrious historian Plutarch (c. 45-c. 120 A.D.) utilized the title
to describe Aristotles fourteen books of first philosophy. Then, Chroust lists
Alexander of Aphrodisias Commentary to Aristotles Metaphysics, written around 200 A.D.,
where we find Alexander explaining that the Stagirite himself described his science of first
philosophy ( ) as , for as regards our noetical process this subject
matter comes after the physics (it belongs to a higher level of abstraction). It is true that first
philosophy (metaphysics) by nature (in itself) comes before the physics (by reason of its
sublimity), but with reference to our limited minds which start from what is accessible to the
senses, physics comes before metaphysics.
Another source that Chroust gives us is the Commentary of Asclepius (6th century
A.D.),6 which is, to a great extent, reliant on Alexander. In his commentary, Asclepius says that
Aristotle himself called his work , for it systematically follows the books of the

The latin translation into metaphysica, says Chroust, probably goes back to Boethius, De Interpretatione, book
I, chap. 5 [ed. Melser, p. 74] (A. H. CHROUST, The Origin of Metaphysics, The Review of Metaphysics, 14
[1961], p. 601).
2
P. MORAUX, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages dAristote, Louvain, 1951.
3
H. REINER, Die Entstehung und ursprnliche Bedeutung des Namens Metaphysik, Zeitschrift fr philosophische
Forschung, 8 (1954) pp. 210-237 ; H. REINER, Die Entstehung der Lehre vom bibliothekarischen Ursprung des
Namens Metaphysik, Zeitschrift fr philosophische Forschung, 9 (1955), pp. 77-99.
4
A. H. CHROUST, op. cit., pp. 601-616.
5
A. H. CHROUST, op. cit., p. 602.
6
ASCLEPIUS, Asclepius in Metaphysica, praefatio, in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, vol. VI, part 2, Berlin,
1888.

Physics.7 Chroust goes on to maintain, along with Asclepius, that , to be sure,

may have had its origin in the sequence of the Aristotelian works, but this sequence is by no
means an external or accidental order of shelving an incident in the techniques used by
librarians. It is rather a deliberate and necessary sequence that is decisively determined by the
order the prior or posterior of our noetic process. And this noetic process reverses the
natural process or order. This fact, according to Asclepius, determines the didactic sequence
which definitely calls for a Physics-Metaphysics sequence. Aristotle himself, Asclepius
concludes, has planned this vital sequence. Hence the order of shelving merely follows the
topical order.8 Chroust believes that the term first philosophy9 that the Stagirite utilized to
describe metaphysics expresses that which is first in the order of nature, while the term
metaphysics proceeding in a reverse order, expresses that which is last according to us, that
is, according to our cognitive processes.
Chroust then proceeds to give us a fourth source: Themistius (4th century A.D.), in his
Commentary on Aristotles Physics, also states that as far as we are concerned, the Metaphysics
comes after the Physics, but according to nature the order or sequence is reversed. That which is
prior is prior in a dual sense. First in relation to us, and, secondly, in relation to nature. In relation
to us that is prior which is better known to us and which we understand more readilyIn relation
to nature that is prior which according to its substance is the more simple (or uniform)and,
hence, the order is reversed here. Because in discursive reasoning we proceed from the
composite to the simple or uniform which, according to nature, is the prior.10
Chroust also mentions a fifth source: an anonymous scholion to the Metaphysics which
reads that the title is derived not from the nature of the subject but rather from
the order in which it should be read (or studied), because it [scil., the Metaphysics] contains the
first principles of physics.11
Concerning Chrousts assessment, in light of historical documentation, of Alexander of
Aphrodisias assertion that the Aristotle himself referred to his science of as
, Chroust writes: while the explanation proposed by Alexander of Aphrodisias
undoubtedly coincides with the intention of Aristotle himself, the latter seems never to have
made use of the term or title metaphysics, preferring, as it were, to speak of a ,
, or, in keeping with a time-honored tradition, a plain .12
As regards the scholarship of Paul Moroux and his attribution of the title ,
in all likelihood, to Aristo of Ceos, Chroust observes the following: Paul Moroux13 has
convincingly shown that as early as the last decades of the first century B.C. there existed an
official list of the works of Aristotle. He not only denies that either Andronicus of Rhodes or
7

Cf. A. H. CHROUST, op. cit., pp. 604-605.

A. H., CHROUST, op. cit., p. 605. Cf. P. MORAUX, op. cit., p. 315.
9
ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, book 6, chapter 1; 1026a, 24.
10
THEMISTIUS, Themistius in Physicam, p. 1, lines 14ff., in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graecia, vol. 5, par. 2,
H. SCHENKL (ed.), Acc. Litt. Reg. Borussiae, Berlin, 1900.
11
Scholia in Aristotelem, C. A. Brandis (ed.), 1836, p. 520 a 26ff.
12
See: A. H. CHROUST, Philosophy: Its Essence and Meaning in the Ancient World, The Philosophical Review,
56 (1947), pp. 19-59.
13
P. MOROUX, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages dAristote, ditions universitaires, Louvain, 1951, ch. 3.
8

even Hermippus (c. 200 B.C.) was the author of the first list, but insists that the first official list
was compiled by Aristo of Ceos (or Ariston of Iulis), the successor of Lycon of Troas in the
Peripatetic scholarcate in 228/5 (?) B.C. Aristo of Ceos apparently intended to write a
comprehensive history of the Peripatetic school. Presumably in pursuit of this task he collected
and published the individual testaments of all preceding Peripatetic scholarchs (Aristotle,
Theophrastus of Eresus, Straton of Lampsacus, and Lycon of Troas). These testaments, it must
be presumed, also contained inventories of all the works written by the testator. Drawing upon
these sources, Aristo compiled an authoritative list of all the works authored by the first
Peripatetic scholarchs, including those by Aristotle. Hence, Moraux concludes, the title or term
in all likelihood dates back at least to Aristo of Ceos, that is, to the last decades of
the third century B.C.14 If Morauxs theory should prove to be correct, and there is much to be
said in its favor, then Andronicus of Rhodes would not have been the originator of the term
metaphysics. More than that, it would conclusively destroy the legend that this term or title
owes its origin to a mere shelving accident. It would, at least by implication, also indicate that
Alexander of Aphrodisias interpretation of the true and original meaning of this term is probably
not only the traditional Peripatetic theory, but also the correct one.
Aristo of Ceos, who wrote only about one hundred years after the death of Aristotle,
presumably still had direct access to the original testament of Aristotle and, hence, to
Aristotles own list of his works. One could assume that Aristotle listed his own writings in a
systematic or didactic sequence (which is not too different from the chronological sequence).
Thus the question arises whether Aristo of Ceos does not merely reproduce Aristotles own
systematic sequence. It is also most unlikely that in the relatively short interval between the
death of Aristotle (in 322 B.C.) and the time Aristo of Ceos published his catalogue of the
Aristotelian writings, there could have been any significant changes in this list or sequence.
Tradition is always a strong force in any particular school of thought, especially when this
tradition has been established by the founder of that school himself. Hence, the question arises
whether or not Aristotle himself established or, at least, indicated or implied a definite systematic
or didactic order underlying his own works.15
Hans Reiner, on the other hand, states that the expression probably goes
back to Eudemus of Rhodes,16 one of Aristotles immediate pupils, but Leo Elders writes
concerning Reiners theory: Reiner asserisce che fu Eudemo a coniare il termine, senza peraltro
addurre prove reali per questa sua affermazione.17
The Role of J. G. Buhle. Where, then, did this fanciful story of a shelving accident
involving Andronicus of Rhodes originate from? Apparently, from Johann Gottlieb Buhle, as
Owens explains: Toward the end of the eighteenth century, a German philologist and historian
of philosophy, Johann Gottlieb Buhle (1763-1821), published at the early age of twenty-five a

14

Ibid.
A. H. CHROUST, op. cit., pp. 611-612.
16
H. REINER, Die Entstehung und ursprnliche Bedeutung des Namens Metaphysik, Zeitschrift fr philosophische
Forschung, 8 (1954) p. 225.
17
L. ELDERS, La metafisica dellessere di San Tommaso dAquino in una prospettiva storica, vol. 1 (Lessere
comune), Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1995, p. 8.
15

forty-two page discussion on the authenticity of the Aristotelian Metaphysics.18 In the course of
that examination Buhle eliminated from the unity of the Metaphysics, mostly on grounds of
obvious failure to satisfy internal coherence, seven of its fourteen books. In his final paragraph
(pp. 41-42), as though by way of afterthought, he asked how such alien documents found their
way into the group of Aristotelian treatises on first philosophy, and replied that this became clear
from the history of their transmission. Repeating the traditional account he went on without any
change in style to narrate, as though part of the tradition, some further details that purported to
round off the story: Andronicus of Rhodes, the first century B.C. editor of the Aristotelian
treatises, arranged the Physics as the last in order according to his own systematic plan; but
Andronicus still had a number of treatises left over that he did not know how to classify, and
hence he appended them to the collection under the general title of ta meta ta physica,
understood in the editorial sense of treatises placed after the physical ones!
Buhle offered no evidence or reasons or arguments for this assertion. Actually, there
were none to offer.19 But his fantastic statement was taken up by encyclopedias and textbooks as
it stood, and was universally accepted almost without question until the middle of the present
century. Today it continues to be repeated, even though it is rejected unhesitatingly on historical
grounds by scholars who have carefully considered the evidence.20 It is an explanation that
would render the term metaphysics as doctrinally meaningless as the heading appendices over
a nondescript group of documents unable to be absorbed into the regular sequence of a book.21

18
J. G. BUHLE, ber die Aechtheit der Metaphysik des Aristoteles, in Bibliothek der Alten Litteratur und Kunst
(Gttingen), 4 (1788).
19
See H. REINER, Die Entstehung der Lehre vom Bibliothekarischen Ursprung des Namens Metaphysik,
Zeitschrift fr philosophische Forschung, 9 (1955), p. 85.
20
See: H. REINER, Die Entstehung und ursprnliche Bedeutung des Namens Metaphysik, Zeitschrift fr
philosophische Forschung, 8 (1954) pp. 210-237. W. JAEGER, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik
des Aristoteles, Berlin, 1912, p. 180, placed it [the coining of the term metaphysics] as far back as at least the
second century B.C. See also Jaegers Aristotle, Oxford, 1934, pp. 378-379. Paul Moraux, Les Listes Anciennes des
Ouvrages dAristote, Louvain, 1951, p. 314, traced it to within about a century after Aristotles death. Reiner, p. 235,
going still farther back to the immediate followers of Aristotle, suggests Eudemus of Rhodes as the pupil who
coined the term. On the history of the practically universal acceptance of Buhles notion, see Reiner, art. cit. (1955),
pp 85-99, and the instances cited in his preceding article (1954), pp. 211-213.
21
J. OWENS, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics, Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas,
Houston, 1985, p. 3.