§67.1Fr. 67
Ὁ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλης. . τὸ αὐτό φησιν εἶναι τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸ καὶ τὸ ᾗ αὐτό· εἴ τι μὲν γὰρ ᾗ αὐτὸ, τοῦτο καὶ καθʼ αὑτό·
Aristotle... says that "per se" and "qua itself" are the same; for if something is qua itself, this is also per se.
οἱ δὲ περὶ τὸν Θεόφραστον διαφέρειν ταῦτα λέγουσι· καθολικώτερον γὰρ εἶναι τὸ καθʼ αὑτὸ τοῦ ᾗ αὐτό. Εἴ τι μὲν γὰρ ἧ αὐτὸ, τοῦτο καὶ καθʼ αὑτὸ, οὐκ εἴ τι δὲ καθʼ αὑτὸ, πάντως καὶ ἧ αὐτό.
But those around Theophrastus say that these differ; for "per se" is more universal than "qua itself." For if something is qua itself, this is also per se, but if something is per se, it is not always also qua itself.
Τῷ γὰρ τριγώνῳ ᾗ τρίγωνόν ἐστιν ὑπάρχει τὸ τὰς τρεῖς γωνίας δυσὶν ὀρθαῖς ἴσας ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ καθʼ αὑτό· τῷ δὲ ἰσοσκελεῖ καθʼ αὑτὸ μὲν ὑπάρχει, οὐκέτι δὲ ἡ αὐτό.
For to a triangle, insofar as it is a triangle, belongs the property of having three angles equal to two right angles, and indeed per se; but to an isosceles triangle it belongs per se, but no longer qua itself.
Οὐ γὰρ ᾗ ἰσοσκελὲς ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ τὸ τὰς τρεῖς γωνίας δυσὶν ὀρθαῖς ἴσας ἔχειν.
For it is not insofar as it is isosceles that the property of having three angles equal to two right angles belongs to it.
Εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκ ἂν τῷ ἰσοπλεύρῳ ἢ σκαληνῷ ὑπῆρχεν, ἐπεὶ μὴ ἰσοσκελῆ, ἀλλʼ ᾗ ἁπλῶς τρίγωνά ἐστιν.
For if this were so, it would not belong to an equilateral or scalene triangle, since they are not isosceles, but rather insofar as they are simply triangles.
Ταῦτα μὲν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον.
Such are the views of those around Theophrastus.