Contemporary perception of Theophrastus, the great disciple and successor of Aristotle, for long known to the majority of non-specialists through either his Characteres or his twin botanical opera, the Historia plantarum and the De causis plantarum, is largely due to the massive editorial and exegetical effort undertaken by the team assembled by W. Fortenbaugh. The detailed research into Theophrastus’ legacy has contributed much to the understanding of the Eresian's standing in the history of philosophy – testimonies have been surveyed and supplemented with many new, hitherto unacknowledged sources, several surviving but rarely read texts have been carefully re-edited. All in all, the Theophrastus we face today appears vastly different from the shadowy figure of the great doxographer emerging from Dielsian Doxographi Graeci (cf. H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci [1879]). It is also different from the essentially negligible (or at best forgettable) and unimaginative successor of Aristotle, striving to supplement his master's legacy with treatises on botany or mineralogy (the position of many historians of literature, for whom Theophrastus is worthy of mention mostly as the author of Characteres; one may think of T. Sinko's monumental Historia literatury greckiej [1932], II.2, p. 798).

The present volume is an edition of a rarely mentioned (and even more rarely read) meteorological work of Theophrastus, the Peri anemon (De ventis). Both the edition and the commentary have been produced by M., though some preliminary work on the manuscripts was done by W. Burnikel. M.’s Theophrastus improves on the edition of V. Coutant and V.L. Eichenlaub (1975) by accounting for some hitherto unnoticed sources (such as the two versions of the Vascosanus edition).

While the fact that all surviving manuscripts of the text rely on the Vaticanus may be seen as fortunate by those unfamiliar with challenges of text edition, the results of such transmission can be extremely damaging. And since the state of the text contained in the Vaticanus is far from perfect, the ‘simplified’ transmission puts enormous demands on the editor (significantly and quite aptly, M. likens his position to that of sheriff John T. Chance of the celebrated Rio Bravo [1959]: his principal source is at best flawed, the odds heavily stacked against his [editorial] success). This time, the editor is a historian of philosophy, extremely well versed in Aristotelian philosophy of nature owing to his previous experience with the Problemata physica. He is also extremely conscientious in his critical effort: as already mentioned, the apparatus (and the commentary) accounts for some hitherto unknown and forgotten critical material on the text, including the unpublished Habilitationsschrift of Olof Gigon, Theophrastos, Über die Winde. Text, Kommentar und Einleitung. (One notes that the decision has the additional historical merit of providing readers with a glimpse of a hitherto lost achievement of the great philologist.)

As for the contents of the edited text: the On Winds, as the editor is quick to note, is not a comprehensive discussion of the theory of winds as such (i.e. not a work on the phenomenon of wind) but rather a consideration concerning natures of various winds. This attention to individual winds rather than the phenomenon per se, as M. rightly emphasises (p. 70), is reflected by the title itself as it specifies peri anemon rather than peri anemou. (Indeed, in spite of the general agreement on the issue in both manuscripts and testimonies, M. devotes considerable attention to the title of the work, particularly to the differentiation between the Περὶ ἀνέμων and the Περὶ πνευμάτων and the problem of singular vs plural. His arguments in favour of the transmitted title [pp. 68–71] are clear and persuasive.) While considerable space is given to a discussion of the origin and the nature of Boreas and Notus (the two winds are the most easily observed and, hence, best known in the ancient tradition), Theophrastus does not neglect others, such as Caecias, Zephyrus or Lips. The text also pays considerable attention to the etesian winds, a seasonal phenomenon well known to students of ancient meteorological lore due, among other things, to their importance for sea travel and agriculture.

The commentary extends for almost three hundred pages (pp. 68–356) and forms the main part of the volume. Paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, M. discusses the philosophical input of the content, its relation to other works of both Theophrastus and Aristotle, the terminology employed and, finally, editorial choices made with respect to the text. A large number of his observations concern lexical aspects of the text, as he carefully compares the use of relevant terms and phrases in other works of Theophrastus and – in a number of cases – Aristotle. The step is particularly important given the need to account for the relationship between the Theophrastean treatise and Aristotle's meteorological writings, the possible points of dependence and similarity, the divergences and differences in outlook. As for the textual choices, M. carefully explains the reasons motivating his preferences: his explanations outline both philological (style-related) and, possibly more importantly, philosophical consequences of accepting or rejecting individual solutions. The resulting detailed discussion is particularly valuable given the sorry state of the text, particularly in its later chapters, as rejected variants may have facilitated a modified or an entirely different reading of the text. Additionally, the extended explanation in the commentary supplements the necessarily concise apparatus: thus, the reader is provided not only with a list of alternative readings, but also with intimations on the probability of these alternatives.

Given that so much of M.’s attention is consumed by the textual aspect of Theophrastus’ work, it is perhaps not a surprise that he pays little attention to any post- or non-Theophrastean developments in wind-lore. His discussion provides no clues to views on winds other than those of Theophrastus and Aristotle: this is not a failing, but rather a correlation of precise exegetical choice. As M. seeks to explain the often confused and difficult treatise, any additional complications stemming from discussions of later approaches to various meteorological issues would likely act as a distraction, further obscuring the discourse. Still, this understandable focus limits the scope of the exegetical discussion in a very particular way: the volume is first and foremost an edition of Theophrastus’ treatise, with extended commentary on the text. Thus the history of science, and consequently meteorological issues, remain incidental to the interest in the text. (This is possibly best illustrated by M.’s discussion of the Etesians: while mentions in Herodotus’ discussion of Egypt [Hist. 2.20] or in the Hippocratean corpus [De aere 10.19; Epidemiae 1.1.1.6 et al.] could have provided a wider context for the Theophrastean portrayal of this seasonal phenomenon, M. limits himself to providing the Aristotelian context.)

M.’s edition is a carefully edited, valuable volume, a worthy addition to the well-established series, but also an interesting work in itself. Given the nature of its subject and the complexities of the discussion, it is likely to be of interest first and foremost to scholars interested in Theophrastus and Peripatetic natural philosophy. Yet, it has much more to offer: indeed, despite the careful narrowing of the scope of discussion to Aristotle and Theophrastus, both the text and M.’s commentary may prove of considerable use to students of the history of science, including not only meteorology, but geography and, possibly, medicine.