THEOPHRASTUS

ON STONES

 .STUS
ON STONES
INTRODUCTION,

GREEK TEXT, ENGLISH TRANSLATION,

AND COMMENTARY

EARLE R. CALEY
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

JOHN F. C. RICHARDS
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

COLUMBUS, OHIO

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

1956

GRADUATE SCHOOL MONOGRAPHS

m PHYSICAL SCIENCE, NO. Ι

Copyright © 1956

The Ohio Sate University

Columbus

Printed in the United States of America

 PREFACE

I N spite of its fundamental importance in the history of mineral­

ogy and chemical technology, no modern annotated transla­
tion of the treatise On Stones by Theophrastus has been available
to students of the history of science. Over two hundred years
have elapsed since the appearance of the first English translation
by John Hill in 1746, and over one hundred and fifty years since
the publication of Hill's second edition in 1774. The first French
and German versions, which are largely based on Hill's transla­
tion, are not only difficult to obtain now but are also obsolete in
many ways, especially in their scientific notes. Within the last
fifty years a French translation by F. de Mely and a German trans­
lation by K. Mieleitner have been published as parts of other
works, but they arc not accompanied by either text or commentary.
We believe that the growing interest in the history of pure and
applied science warrants the publication of a new and annotated
English translation of this important Greek work. Such a trans­
lation is especially desirable at the present time, since few students
of science are now able to acquire a reading knowledge of Greek.
Even students of Greek who are unfamiliar with the peculiar style
and terminology of Theophrastus may find this translation useful.
The text and critical notes should also be of interest to them, and
the commentary may be of value, for without some interpretation
the numerous technical terms used in the treatise and the ra­
tionale of the processes described in it are not easily understood.
We hope that the occasional items of miscellaneous information
scattered through the work may be of some interest to students
in other fields. There is ample evidence that this particular treatise
has been neglected by scholars generally, and Hill's quaint prefa­
tory remarks are nearly as applicable today as they were over two
centuries ago:
The many References to Theophrastus, and the Quotations from
him, so frequent in the Works of all the later Writers of Fossils,
would make one believe, at first sight, that nothing was more uni­
versally known, or perfectly understood, than the Treatise before us:
But when we come to enquire more strictly into the Truth, and ex­
amine with our own Eyes what it really is that he has left us, we shall
 PREFACE

find that though no Author is so often quoted, no Author is so little

understood, or, indeed, has been so little read; those who are so free
with his Name, having given themselves, generally, very little Trouble
about his Works, and only taken upon Trust from one another, what
we shall in most Cases find, on strict Enquiry, to have been originally
quoted from him by Pliny . . . .
Many long delays and interruptions have occurred during the
preparation of this book, and four authors have been engaged in
its composition. In 1934, Earle R. Caley of the Department of
Chemistry at Princeton University and Shirley H. Weber of the
Department of Classics began work on an annotated translation
of the treatise. But for a long time circumstances prevented them
from collaborating effectively. In the period between 1936 and the
beginning of World War II they lived both in Greece and in the
United States and could seldom meet to discuss the work; and
though both were in the United States during most of the war,
not much attention could be paid to the preparation of the book
because of more pressing interests. As a consequence the manu­
script was never brought to a satisfactory state, and when Pro­
fessor Weber returned to Athens at the close of the war to resume
his position as Librarian of the Gennadion, he decided that it
would be impossible to continue as a collaborator. In the mean­
time, Thomas T. Read of the School of Mines at Columbia Uni­
versity and John F. C. Richards of the Department of Greek and
Latin began, quite independently, to prepare an annotated trans­
lation of the same treatise. Early in 1946 they heard that a similar
enterprise had long been in progress at Princeton and arranged to
collaborate with Earle R. Caley of the Department of Chemistry.
After Professor Read died in 1947, the present authors decided to
complete the book. We hereby acknowledge our indebtedness to
Professor Weber and to Professor Read. Professor Weber gave
much time and thought to problems of translation and interpreta­
tion; some of his suggestions are incorporated in the present
translation and in certain notes in the Commentary. Professor
Read was planning to make his own contribution. It is greatly to
be regretted that, owing to his illness, he could not use his ex­
tensive knowledge of geology and mineralogy for this purpose.
Since both linguistic and scientific knowledge is required, it

VI
 PREFACE

seems unlikely that a book of this kind could properly be pro­

duced in this age of specialized scholarship without collaboration.
In such a book it is not easy to show the exact contribution of
each collaborator, but the division of labor and responsibility was
approximately as follows. John F. C. Richards collated the manu­
scripts and editions and prepared the critical notes to the Greek
text. He is also responsible for the translation, though Earlc R.
Caley made many suggestions, so that to some degree this trans­
lation may be considered a joint production. The Introduction
and the Commentary were written jointly; John F. C. Richards
supplied the notes of linguistic interest, but most of the material
in the Commentary was contributed by Earle R. Calcy. This in­
cludes the identification of precious stones and other mineral sub­
stances, the discussion of problems in the field of archaeology,
chemistry, or mineralogy, and other matters of scientific or tech­
nological interest
We hereby express our sincere thanks to all those who have
helped us in our task. Among those who have been especially help­
ful with criticisms and suggestions are Professor Gilbert Highet
of Columbia University and Professors Kenneth M. Abbott, Wil­
liam R. Jones, Lowell Ragatz, and Everett Walters of the Ohio
State University. Finally we express our gratitude to the authorities
of the Graduate School of the Ohio State University for their
generosity in sponsoring the publication of this book.
E. R. C.
J.F.C.R.
COLUMBUS, OHIO
September, 1956

Vll
 CONTENTS

Introduction 3

Manuscripts and Editions n

Abbreviations 15

Text 19

Apparatus Criticus 31

Translation 45

Commentary 63

Works Cited in the Commentary 223

Greek Index 227

Index to Translation and Commentary 231

THEOPHRASTUS

ON STONES

 INTRODUCTION

UNY, in his Natural History, mentions about twenty Greek

P writers as authorities for his chapters on precious stones and
other mineral substances, but, of the works of these authors, only
the brief, or fragmentary, treatise On Stones by Theophrastus has
survived to inform us in a direct way of the extent of Greek learn­
ing in this field As the earliest known scientific work dealing
expressly with minerals and artificial products derived from them,
it is of unique importance in the history of mineralogy and of
chemical technology.
Theophrastus, the famous pupil of Aristotle, was born about
372 B.C. at Eresos on the island of Lesbos. He studied at Athens
and became an adherent of the school of Plato, and later a friend
and pupil of his master Aristotle; when Aristotle withdrew from
Athens (before his death in 322), he succeeded him as leader of
the Peripatetic school of philosophy. He remained its spokesman
and outstanding figure until his death, about 287; for according to
1 1
Diogenes Laertius, he died at the age of eighty-five.
Though Theophrastus is best known in literature for his Char­
acters, a work which has had considerable influence on the drama
and on other branches of literature, his writings on natural sci­
ence are at least of equal importance. His two great works on
plants, for example, have led posterity to consider him one of
the greatest botanists of all time, the founder of botanical science.
Following the practice of the philosophers of his day, he was,
however, a voluminous writer on a great variety of subjects. Pri­
mary Proportions, Problems in Natural Philosophy, History of
Astronomy, Love, Meteorology, Epilepsy, Animals, Motion, Laws,
Odors, Wine and OH, Proverbs, Water, Fire, History of Geometry,
Sleep and Dreams, Virtue, Inventions, Music, Poetry, History of
1
Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Book V, chap, ii, sec 40. At the beginning of
chap, ii Diogenes Laertius says that he obtained information about Theophrastus from
Apollodorus.
* The dates 372-287 are accepted by W. von Christ-W. Schmid-O. Stahlin, Geschichte
ier griechischen Litteratur in Handbuch der \lassischen Altertumswisscnschaft, 6th ed.,
VbL ΥΠ, 2, 1 (1920), p. 60. However, the exact dates are not certain. K.O. Brink,
Oxford Classical Dictionary (1949), p. 896, suggests 372/369-288/285; and O. Regen­
bogen in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encydopadic, Supplemental VoL VII (1940), p.1357,
puts his birth in 372/371 or 371/370 and his death in 288/287 or 287/286.

• 3·
 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES

Divine Things, Politics, and Heaven are only a few of the titles of
the 220 works ascribed to him by Diogenes Laertius.*
In fact, so varied and enormous was the output of both Theo­
phrastus and Aristotle that many treatises written by their pupils
have no doubt been included under their names; but, because of
similarities in style and thought, such works can rightly be con­
sidered productions of the Peripatetic school and for convenience
be ascribed to the masters. The treatise On Stones has sometimes
been placed in this category, for in style it is more like a set of
student's notes than a finished scientific work. Certain of its pas­
sages, such as the one in section 68 containing an illustrative story,
arc obvious abridgments that seem to be mere memoranda writ­
ten to recall more detailed information. Hence it seems probable
that the treatise, as we now have it, is only a set of notes taken
down by some student while listening to lectures given by Theo­
phrastus. It is also possible, on the basis of the same internal evi­
dence, that we have before us the personal lecture notes of the
master himself. Whether the treatise in its present form is a set
of notes taken at lectures or previously written for lectures, it may
safely be assumed to represent the actual views of Theophrastus,
and he may reasonably be considered the real author.
Internal evidence indicates that the treatise was written near the
end of the fourth century B.C., well within the lifetime of Theo­
phrastus. This evidence appears in section 59 in the form of a
statement about the time of the discovery by a certain Kallias of
a process for refining cinnabar. The validity of this evidence is
discussed at length in the notes on that section of the Commentary.
There are comparatively few manuscripts, editions, and trans­
lations of the works of Theophrastus, and the treatise On Stones
has appeared even less often than some of his other works. Only
three codices are known to contain it—namely, Vaticanus 1302,
Vaticanus 1305, and Vaticanus Urbinas 108—and the versions
differ little from each other. Moreover, only two of them are com­
plete, as Vaticanus 1305 ends in the middle of section 43. Accord­
ing to Schneider, these codices were collated by Brandis, who
* By actual count there are 226 such titles, but six of these are bracketed as probable
repetitions by R- D. Hicks, cd., Diogenes Laerdus, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
(Loeb Classical Library, London and New York, 1925)» Vol. I, pp. 488-502.

• 4 '
 INTRODUCTION

found very little that would improve the text* The date of Vati­
canus 1302 is disputed. Devreese and Gianelli put it as early as
6 e
the twelfth century, but Diels thinks that it is as late as the
fourteenth. The other two manuscripts both belong to the fif­
teenth century. Heinsius claimed that he had made use of a Heidel­
berg manuscript, but this statement has been disputed/
The first appearance of the treatise On Stones in printed form
is in the Aldine edition* of the works of Aristotle and Theo­
phrastus published at Venice from 1495 to 1498 and reprinted
there in 1552. The first Latin translation of the treatise appeared
in Paris in 1578; this was the work of Turnebus, who had already
published the corresponding Greek text in 1577. This was followed
by the edition of Furlanus, published in 1605 at Hanover, con­
taining the Greek text of some of the works of Thcophrastus
together with a Latin translation and a commentary. And in 1613
a Greek and Latin edition of his works was published by Hein­
sius at Leyden. This is an unsatisfactory edition which has been
severely criticized by both Schneider and Wimmer. Some emenda­
tions of the text of the treatise were published by Salmasius (Claude
de Saumaise) in 1629 in his FUnianac Exercitationes? In 1647 De
Laet published at Leyden an annotated Greek and Latin edition
of the treatise On Stones; this appeared at the beginning of his
work De gemmis et lapidibus libri duo, which was published as
a supplement to the third edition of De Boodt's famous Gemma-
rum et lapidum historia. It is not strictly an independent publica­
tion of the treatise.
The first edition in which the text appeared as a single work,
as well as the first translation into any modern language and the
first extensive commentary, was published by Hill in 1746 at
4
Schneider, J. G., ed., Thcophrasu Eresii quae supertunt opera (Leipzig, 1818-1821),
VoL V, p. 146.
5
We are indebted to the Vatican Library for this information.
• See Diets, H., "AristDtelis qui fertur de Mclisso Xenophane Gorgia libcllus," Ab­
hmdlungcn der kpniglichen Academic der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosopkisch-his­
torische Classe (1900), p. 5.
7
Sir Arthur Hort says that "this claim appears to be entirely fictitious." Theophrastus,
Enquiry into Flouts (London and New York, 1916), p. xii.
8
The full titles of the various editions mentioned here are listed at the end of this
Introduction.
Ά later edition of this work has been consulted, namely, Salmasius, C , PUnianae
Exercitationes in Cm ]tdu SoUni Polyhistora (Utrecht, 1689).
 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES

London. It is still of considerable value for the light it throws on

the state of chemical, geological, and mineralogical knowledge in
10
the period during which it was written. Hill's work appeared
in a second and final edition in 1774, largely unaltered as regards
the text, translation, and commentary, but containing additional
matter in the appendix and a fuller index. A French translation
of Hill's English version and commentary, but without the Greek
text, was published anonymously at Paris in 1754, and a similar
German translation with additional notes by Baumgartner was
published at Nurnberg in 1770. Another German translation by
Schmieder is said to have been published at Freiberg in 1807,"
but this seems to be a very rare work, since no other mention of
it could be found, and no copy could be located. These few
works, which, with the possible exception of the last, arc wholly
or mostly based upon the labors of Hill, constitute the only
past appearance of the treatise On Stones as an independent
publication.
In the nineteenth century the treatise again appears in the form
of a Greek text and Latin translation in Schneider's elaborate edi­
tion of the complete works of Theophrastus published at Leipzig
in 1818, followed by a fifth volume in 1821. In this fifth volume
Schneider was able to make use of some emendations of the text
suggested by Adaraantios Coraes" in his commentary on the
Geography of Strabo published at Paris in 1819. The Greek text
of die treatise also appears in the third volume of Wimmer's
Teubner edition published at Leipzig in 1862. In the Didot edi­
tion, published at Paris in 1866, this Greek text of Wimmer is
reproduced, and Wimmer's parallel Latin translation is given.
Of these three important editions, Schneider's is the most valuable
for its extensive critical notes and discussions of the readings of
earlier editions. In this respect, the two editions of Wimmer are
inferior, though the text of Wimmer is somewhat better, and in
1 0
Its author, John Hill (1716-1775), was a somewhat eccentric litterateur and sci­
entist who was embroiled with many famous men of his time. Though called by his
enemies a quack, and by Dr. Johnson a liar, he was, nevertheless, a very learned man
and a very able writer. His translation of the treatise On Stones brought him to the
notice of the Royal Society and won him the friendship of some of its members, which
he forfeited by the publication of certain satirical works directed against them.
« Schneider, op. at., VoL Π, p. 578; Vol. IV, p. 535·
1 2
Also written Koraes, KoraTs, or Coray.
 INTRODUCTION

his Didot edition he gives a Latin translation that is more original

than the translation of Schneider, which largely follows the ear­
lier version of Turncbus. In 1902, a French translation of the
treatise was published by Me*ly" in a collection of texts and trans­
lations of early works on precious stones. In the same year Ste­
phanides published a valuable list of emendations in the Greek
periodical Athena" These have been added to the list of variant
readings in this book. Finally, in 1922, Mieleitner" published a
German translation, based on Wimmer's text, in an article on the
history of mineralogy in ancient and medieval times.
In addition to these complete publications of the treatise in one
form or another, excerpts of various parts of it have been pub­
lished from time to time in various languages in a number of
scattered works. The most extensive publication of such excerpts
is that of Lenz,1* who made German translations of many parts
of Hill's English translation and added numerous short notes,
most of them original, on the significance of the various passages
and on the identification of the minerals and localities mentioned
by Theophrastus. The most recent is that of Drabkin," who gives
an English translation of 17 sections of the treatise. Aside from
these partial translations, only a few other studies of parts of the
treatise have appeared. Schwarze" began a Latin commentary in
1801, and had published seven parts by 1807. In 1896, Stephanides19
published an important study of the treatise. Ruska's work, Das
Stcinbuck des Aristoteles™ deals with a much later treatise on
stones incorrectly attributed to Aristotle, but he refers to the trea­
tise of Theophrastus in his introduction. Reference is made in
the Commentary to some of these translated excerpts and spe­
cial studies, particularly to the interpretations advanced by their
authors.
"Mely, F. de, Les Upidmres de YanaqmU et du moyen age (Paris, 1896-1902), Vol.
ΠΙ, fasc L
ι* Stephanides, Μ. K., Athena XIV (1902), 367-71.
15
Mieleitner, K., Fortschritte der Mincrdogie, KristaUographte mad Ρctrographic
Vn ( i 9 « ) , 431-45·
"Lenz, H., Mineralogie der alien Griechen und Romer (Gotha, 1861), pp. 16-28.
" Cohen, M. R., and Drabkin, I. £., A Source Book of Greek Science (New York,
1948).
18
Schwarze, C A . , f t Theophrasd lapidibus commentauones (Gorlkii, 1801-1807).
19
Stephanides, M. K., The Mineralogy of Theophrastus (in Greek), (Athens, 1896).
"Ruska, J., Das Stcinbuck des Aristoteles (Heidelberg, 1912).

•7·
 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES

The Greek text which is printed here is almost the same as the
one established by Wimmcr, but a few minor changes have been
made. The three Vatican manuscripts have been collated, as well
as the editions of Aldus, Turnebus, Furlanus, Heinsius, De Laet,
Hill, and Schneider. All the important variations in the manu­
scripts and some of the conjectures made by the editors are listed
in the critical notes, and the differences between this text and
Wimmer's text have also been included. Though the traditional
numbering of the sections of the text has been retained, some
adjustments have been made in the paragraphs of the transla­
tion where the usual divisions between the sections appear to be
illogical.
In this translation an attempt has been made to give a clear and
simple English version, but at the same time to keep as close as
possible to the actual words of the Greek text. In this respect the
translation differs from the rather free version of Hill, who re­
flected the spirit of his times and in many passages preferred
elegance of expression to accuracy of statement Nevertheless, be­
cause of the very compressed style of Theophrastus, certain pas­
sages in the present translation are of necessity expanded para­
phrases of the Greek text The difficult problem of the translation
of the Greek names of mineral substances has been treated in the
following way. Names of mineral substances, particularly those
of precious stones, for which no exact English equivalent could
be found are simply transliterated, and appear in italics in the
translation, and the question of their identification is discussed
in the Commentary. Names for which an exact English equivalent
could be given are so translated and do not appear in italics. Gen­
erally the Greek spelling of proper names has been used, but
wherever the Latin or the English spelling is customary, this has
been preferred; thus Theophrastus and Athens are written in­
stead of Theophrastos and Athenai.
It has generally been thought that the treatise is a fragment of
a very much larger work. A possible explanation of the lacunae,
and perhaps of the marked lack of literary style, may be found in
21
an account given by Strabo, who describes the fate of the manu­
script books of Theophrastus after his death, and the later un­
» Geography, Book ΧΠΙ, chap, i, sec. 54.

• 8·
 INTRODUCTION

skillful attempts to restore them to their original state. Apart

from a few obvious gaps, however, and the rather abrupt ending,
there is no real evidence that the treatise in its present form is
not a separate, fairly complete work. Its brevity is apparently the
basis of most of the suppositions that the text as we have it is a
mere fragment; but if due consideration is given to the nature
of the treatise and to the extent of ancient mineralogical knowl­
edge as shown by other sources, it will be seen that it covers the
field indicated by its title in an adequate manner, even though
it may not be complete.
Without being a purely descriptive or a purely philosophical
work, the treatise seems to be an attempt to classify mineral sub­
stances on the basis of Aristotelian principles, and a number of
specific examples are used, mainly for purposes of illustration,
without any intention of giving extended descriptions. It may be
inferred that Theophrastus mentions only a small proportion of
the mineral products known to him and his contemporaries; for
Pliny, though he draws largely from Greek authors, some older
than Theophrastus, mentions about ten times as many kinds of
rocks or minerals. Those mentioned by Theophrastus appear to
be introduced mainly to illustrate in a general way contrasting
behavior and distinctive differences in stones and earths, and he
may not have intended to catalogue the numerous varieties that
were known at the time. This would explain why he describes
relatively few mineral substances in any detail, and why he pays
so little attention to certain common and highly useful ones about
which a good deal must have been known even in his day.
From the historical standpoint the treatise is of special interest
because it represents, so far as we know, the first attempt to study
mineral substances in a systematic way. For this purpose, Theo­
phrastus divides them into two main classes, stones and earths,
discussion of the latter being confined to the second and smaller
portion of the treatise. Though few in number, the concise ac­
counts of ancient chemical processes included in this division are
of no little importance for the history of chemical technology. At
first glance, the structure of the treatise may seem to be loose or
even disconnected, but on closer examination it will be readily
apparent that this is not so. From the very beginning Theophras­

•9·

 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES

tus proceeds in a systematic way to develop the subject under

discussion, proceeding regularly from the general to the particu­
lar, foreshadowing what is to come and making easy transitions
from one phase of the general subject to another. Though his
whole method of treatment is logical enough, the classification or
system resulting from it, being grounded upon superficial ap­
pearance and behavior rather than upon any concept of chemical
composition, necessarily has marked limitations. Nevertheless,
from a scientific standpoint this little treatise is much better than
the other ancient and medieval works on minerals that are known
to us. Pliny, for example, though he treats the subject far more
extensively, does so in a much less critical and systematic fashion.
The comparative freedom of the treatise On Stones from fable
and magic should be especially noted, for many of the works
in this field written centuries later, particularly the medieval
lapidaries, dwell largely upon the fancied magical or curative
powers of precious stones. In fact, for almost two thousand years
this treatise by Theophrastus remained the most rational and
systematic attempt at a study of mineral substances.

10
 MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS
MANUSCRIPTS

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1302, XII-XIV Gcntury.

Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1305, XV Century.
Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 108, XV Century.

EDITIONS

ALDUS. Editio princeps: Aristoteles et Theophrastus. Venctiis, in

domo Aldi Manutii Romani et Graecorum studiosi, 1497, torn. II, fol.
254-60 (et repetita in editione Camotiana apud Aldi filios, 1552, pp.

TURNEBUS. Thcophrasti De lapidibus. Lutetiae, ex officina Federici

Morclli, 1577.
Thcophxasti de lapidibus liber, ab Adriano Turnebo latinitate dona­
tus. Lutetiae, ex officina Federici Morelli, 1578.
FURLANUS. Theophrasti Ercsii peripateticorum post Aristotelem
principis, pleraque antehac Latine numquam, nunc Graece et Latine
simul edita. Interpretibus Daniele Furlano Cretensi, Adriano Turnebo.
Accesserunt liber De innato spiritu, Aristoteli attributus et Danielis
Furlani uberes ad omnia commentarii. Hanoviae, typis Wcchclianis,
apud Claudium Marnium, 1605.
HEINSIUS. Thcophrasti Ercsii Graece et Latine opera omnia. Daniel
Heinsius textum graecum locis infinitis partim ex ingenio partim e
libris emendavit, hiulca supplevit, male concepta recensuit, interpreta­
tionem passim intcrpolavit. Cum indice locupletissimo. Lugduni Bata­
vorum, ex typographio Henrici ab Haestens, impensis Iohannis Orlcrs,
And. Cloucq, et Ioh. Maire, 1613.
D E LAET. Ioannis De Laet Antverpiani De gemmis et lapidibus libri
duo quibus pracmittitur Theophrasti liber De lapidibus Graece et
Latine cum brevibus annotationibus. Lugduni Batavorum, ex officina
Ioannis Mairc, 1647.
Hnx. Theophrastus's History of stones. With an English version
and critical and philosophical notes, including the modern history of
the gems, etc., described by that author, and of many other of the native
fossils. By John Hill. To which are added, two letters: One to Dr.
James Parsons, FJR-S. On the colours of the sapphire and turquoise.
And the other, to Martin Folkes, Esq., Doctor of Laws, and President
of the Royal Society; upon the effects of different menstruums on cop­
1
There is also an eiiao BasUiensif (J. Oporinus, Basileae, 1541), but this has not
been used for the critical notes.
• II ·
 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES
per. Both tending to illustrate the doctrine of gems being coloured
by metalline particles. London, printed for C. Davis, 1746.
Second edition, as above, with: . . . Greek index, Observations on
the new Swedish acid, and of the stone from which it is obtained, and
Idea of a natural and artificial method of fossils, by John Hill, 1774.
SCHNEIDER. Theophrasti Eresii quae supersunt opera et excerpta li­
brorum quatuor tomis comprehensa. Ad fidem librorum editorum et
scriptorum emendavit, Historiam et libros VI De causis plantarum
coniuncta opera D. H. F. Linkii, excerpta solus, explicare conatus est
Io. Gottlob Schneider, Saxo. Lipsiae, sumptibus Frid. Christ. Guil.
Vogelii, 1818. Tom. V, 1821.
WIMMER (Teubner). Theophrasti Eresii Opera quae supersunt om­
nia. Ex recognitione Friderici Wimmcr. Tomus tertius fragmenta
condnens. Lipsiae, sumptibus et typis B. G. Teubneri, 1862.
WIMMER (Didot). Theophrasti Eresii Opera quae supersunt omnia.
Graeca recensuit, Latine interpretatus est, indices rerum et verborum
absolutissimos adjecit Fridericus Wimmer . . . Parish's, Firmin Didot,
1866.
FRENCH TRANSLATIONS. Traite* des pierres de Theophraste. Traduit
du grec; avec des notes physiques et critiques, traduites de l'anglois de
M. Hill; auquel on a ajoute* deux lettres du meme auteur, Tune au
docteur Parsons, sur les couleurs du saphir et de la turquoise; et
l'autre a M. Folkes, . . . sur les effets des differens menstrues sur le
cuivre. Paris, Herissant, 1754.
Les lapidaires de l'antiquite et du moyen age, F. de Mely, Tome
ΙΠ, fasc 1, Paris, 1902.
GERMAN TRANSLATIONS. Theophrastus von den Steinen aus dem
Griechischen. Nebst Hills physicalischen und critischen Anmerkungen
u. einigen in die Naturgeschichte u. Chymie eingeschlagenden Briefen,
aus dem englischen ubersetzt. Mit Anmerkungen u. einer Abhandlung
von der Kunst der Alten in Stcincn zu schneiden vermehrt. Von Albeit
Heinrich Baumgartner. Numberg, 1770.
Karl Mieleitncr, "Geschichte der Mineralogie im Altertum und im
Mittelalter," Fortschritte der Mineralogie, Kristallographie und Pe­
trologie VII (1922), 427-80.

Since the manuscripts correspond in error to a marked degree,

they are either derived from a common source or Β and C depend
on A. A and C are very similar in their readings, but there are
certain differences in B. The additional mistakes that are found
here are probably due to a careless copyist, but the manuscript

• 12 ·
 MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS
has also been corrected by a later hand, and sometimes the cor­
rect reading appears as follows: μόνος is corrected to όμοιος in
section 6. The Aldine edition corresponds in error with the manu­
scripts to such an extent that it is clearly derived from the same
source. In a number of places it gives a different reading, fre­
quently the correct one, e.g., χρώμασι for χρώμενα in section i,
but it is not certain whether these changes are due to the skill
of the editor or are derived from some other source which has
not survived. The most difficult problem occurs in section 20,
where Aldus is the sole source for ου, which is written as an ab­
breviation before κισατηρουτω.. Wimmer accepts this, though the
manuscripts have ή or ή. There is no evidence that Aldus derived
this from another source, and it may be a misprint. He is of no
assistance in filling the difficult gaps in the manuscripts, such as
the one in section 8 between σχώόν and λόγο ν; but though his
text contains many misprints, he is frequently helpful in supply­
ing the right reading.
Schneider thinks highly of Turnebus and often accepts his con­
jectures; Heinsius tends to follow Furlanus, who was not as good
an editor as Turnebus. Hill's text is too full of misprints to be
reliable.
The variant readings of the three manuscripts and the Aldine
edition have been listed wherever they differ from Wimmer's
text Some minor variations in spelling that appear in the manu­
scripts and some obvious misprints made by Aldus have been
omitted. Certain conjectures that appear in the six later editions
or in other publications have also been listed, but variations that
seem to be due to mistakes or misprints usually have not been
included.
Though it is customary to use Latin for critical notes on a text,
this has not been done here, since the book is intended for read­
ers interested in science as well as for classical scholars; but for
the sake of brevity the abbreviations "om.," "add.," and "conj."
have been used for an omission, an addition, and a conjecture.
Words added to the text are indicated by pointed brackets, words
removed from the text are indicated by square brackets, and
doubtful words are marked with a dagger. Since the editors differ

• 13 ·

 THEOPHRASTUS ON STONES
in their use of brackets and are sometimes inconsistent, it has not
always been easy to guess their meaning.
Wimmer's Didot edition is the same as the Teubner edition
except for a few unimportant misprints that have been corrected
and two minor variations in section 36 and section 37. A few
changes have been made in Wimmer's text, and in these places
Wimmer's readings have been listed. Thus έξομοωνν[ται] has
been read in section 4, Si ων in section 6, (πάντ€ς των κατά) in
section 8, ev τοις in section 13, έκκαίεται in section 17, η before
κισσηρούται in section 20, πολυτιμότερα in section 22, τανών in
section 25, λευκστατον in section 55, γ&ϋφανέσιν in section 61,
and τοιούτο in section 65. Sometimes Wimmer omits the definite
article where it appears in the manuscripts. It seems better to
follow the manuscripts whenever this is possible; therefore της
has been restored before κισσηρώος in section 22, τους before
ετησίας in section 35, τφ before ίλαίω in section 42, των before
παχύτατων in section 55, τά before άπομάγματα in section 67,
and rots before τοιοντοις in section 68. In section 36 Wimmcr
keeps τους before uroXvreXc?? in his first edition and omits it in
the second. Sometimes the definite article does not appear in the
manuscripts, though it is really needed for clarity. In these places
(η) has been added to the text as follows: in section 5 before
κατά τάς εργασίας and in section 22 after μέλαινα, before μα­
λώδης, and before 4κ της θαλάσσης. A few accents have been
changed, e^g., σπίνος in section 13 and πρασΐτις and αίματΐτις
in section 37.
In the Didot edition Wimmer uses capital letters at the be­
ginning of each sentence, but in the Teubner edition he uses
them only at the beginning of chapters. Here the Teubner edition
has been followed. Adjectives formed from place names have been
written with capitals wherever Wimmer has used small letters,
but these changes have not been included in the critical notes.

14 ·

 ABBREVIATIONS

In the critical notes the following abbreviations are used for the
manuscripts, and the name of the editor is used for each of the printed
editions.
MANUSCRIPTS

1. A = Codex Vatican us Graecus 1302, 12th-14th century.

2. Β = Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1305, 15th century.

This ends in the middle of section 43.

3. C = Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 108, 15th century.

Ω — the consensus of A, B, C up to section 43 and of A, C from
section 43 to section 69.
FIRST EDITION

4. Aldus — Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1497.

OTHER EDITIONS

5. Turnebus = A. Turnebus, Paris. 1577.

6. Furlanus = D. Fur Ian us, Hanover, 1605.
7. Heinsius = D. Heinsius, Leyden, 1613.
8. Laet = J. de Laet, Leyden, 1647.
9. Hill = J. Hill, second edition, London, 1774.
10. (a) Schneider = J. G. Schneider, Leipzig, 1818.
(b) Schneider (Syll.) = J. G. Schneider, Syllabus emendandorum
et addendorum, Vol. 5, 1821.
EDITIONS USED FOR THE TEXT

11. Wimmer = F. Wimmer, Teubner edition, Leipzig, 1862, and

Didot edition, Paris, 1866. Where they differ, they are represented
by Wimmer (T) and Wimmer ( D ) .
OTHER AUTHORS AND WORKS

Stephanides = M. K. Stephanides, Athena, XIV (Athens, 1902), 367­

71·
Stephanides (Min.) = M. K. Stephanides, The Mineralogy of Theo­
phrastus (In Greek), Athens, 1896.
Coraes = Adamantios Coraes.
Salmasius = C. Salmasius (Claude de Saumaise).
Eichholz = D. E. Eichholz, Classical Review, LXVI (1952), 144-45;
LIX (1945), 52.

• 15·