Part 62

Plutarch’s method in handling quotations from philosophers who wrote in poetry is more satisfactory. It is only rarely that the thought is put in his own words, or that the quotation consists of less than a full line. Sometimes lines are grouped which do not belong together, as ap. Moral. 607 C and 618 B. In some instances the text itself seems to be at fault. In general, however, the poetic form protected such quotations from change, and the poetic form was naturally retained in quotations for the purpose of embellishment. I may add that Plutarch rarely neglects to give the name of the author from whom he quotes. As to the source of these poetic quotations, we cannot doubt that Plutarch sometimes quotes Empedokles from the original. A literary man could hardly fail to be acquainted with his poems, and it is by no means likely that the quotations Moral. 607 C, 1111 F, 1113 are taken from an intermediate source. Five of the quotations from Parmenides, on the other hand, were not new to the readers of Plato and Aristotle, and the two remaining ones, together with some of the lines from Empedokles, as I have tried to show elsewhere, were probably drawn from a collection of passages on the moon. There is no evidence that Plutarch knew Parmenides at first hand. Many passages of Empedokles also had become common property in the time of Plutarch, and in some instances Plutarch no doubt found collections of quotations suitable for his purpose, so that we cannot attribute all the single lines quoted from Empedokles to Plutarch’s own study of his poems.

§ 9. Judged by the Herakleitos fragments which they yield, the works of Clement and Hippolytos are hardly second in importance to Plutarch for the student of early Greek philosophy. In the Protreptikos of Clement there is an interesting series of passages from Herakleitos on popular worship; in the Paedagogos and the first and fourth books of the Stromata there are scattered quotations most of which bear clear marks of their secondary origin; book II contains several quotations from the introduction to Herakleitos’ works; while the third and fifth books of the Stromata contain a much larger collection of passages from Herakleitos, Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Empedokles. A casual glance at the whole series of quotations shows that Clement’s method was by no means uniform, and that he was often contented with a secondary source for his quotations, not taking the trouble to look them up in the original. In the first book of the Stromata the first quotation from Herakleitos is a proverb familiar in Greek literature, the second passage a bare allusion to a sentence quoted by Plutarch, and the two remaining ones refer to two quotations also given by Diogenes. That Clement used the βίοι which were the basis of the work of Diogenes Laertios is probable from his quotation of Parmenides 28-30 and Empedokles 26-28, 383-384. It is also highly probable that Clement found much of his material in Stoic sources. It is generally agreed that in Paedagogos ii. and iii. he freely used Musonius. Hera. 122 ap. Clement 188 ‘what men do not expect at death’ is interpreted by Clement as referring to Stoic fire, and Clement 649 (Hera. 123) also attributes to Herakleitos and the Stoics an idea belonging to the latter only. Hera. 77 is alluded to by Seneca as familiar to his Stoic readers, and other fragments cited by Clement were apparently found by Philo in his Stoic sources. Hera. 69 ap. Clement 718 looks like another form of Hera. 19 which Plutarch quotes from a Stoic source, and perhaps we may regard 20 also as from the Stoic source from which Plutarch drew. Hera. 31 ap. Clement 87 includes an added phrase (as to the stars) which appears also in one of the two passages in Plutarch where it is quoted. One of the lines of Parmenides and six of the single lines of Empedokles given by Clement are also found in Plutarch. Consequently I regard it as not improbable that Clement drew quotations from Plutarch, and as all but certain that he drew from the Stoic sources of Plutarch. The wrong interpretation of Hera. 116 (ap. Clement 699), 122 (ap. 18), 67 (ap. 261), 79 (ap. 111), and perhaps 27 (ap. 229) is additional proof that Clement was entirely unfamiliar with the context in which these passages originally stood, and therefore probably did not draw from the original. While we are quite unable to trust Clement’s interpretation of his quotations, it should be remarked that he is exceedingly careful to give the correct form (e.g. Hera. 101 ap. Clement 586 as compared with the same fragment in Hippolytos; in this quotation he gives the dialect forms with his usual fidelity).

It remains to consider several series of passages, and to ask whether these were quoted at firsthand. In the Protreptikos we find Herakleitos fragments 122, 124, 125 together, and a little farther on 126-127 (cf. 122 ap. Clement 680, and 123 ap. 649) on the topic of popular worship. These are clearly quoted from a connected passage, and not phrases that have been passed on as proverbs. Moreover 124-127 are somewhat closely connected with each other (perhaps 122 belongs with them). It is evident that Clement (or possibly the immediate source of Clement) drew them from a somewhat extended passage in the original. Another series of passages from Herakleitos and Empedokles (ap. Clement 516 and 520) are quoted as illustrating the misery of human life. They occur together in a long series of quotations on this topic, and at least one line, Empedokles 404, is not quite pertinent; its lack of fitness in this connection may mean that Clement is adapting a collection of passages made (wholly or in part) by another hand for a slightly different purpose. Again, a considerable number of fragments, especially in books ii. and v. of the Stromata, are pithy proverbial statements of the fundamental attitude of Herakleitos toward other men (cf. Herakl. 5-8, 104, 2-3, 49, 111 b with its addition from Demosthenes de corona p. 324). These are all marked by their proverbial form, and are many of them quoted by other writers. It is most natural to think that they were drawn from a collection of Herakleitean sayings such as is presupposed by the allusions of Marcus Aurelius and perhaps by the parody of Lucian.

As to the poetic citations in the fifth book of the Stromata it seems to me wholly likely that the verses of Xenophanes, and Parmenides 133-139, are quoted from the original poems. Empedokles lines 74 and 165 are repeated as proverbs; lines 33, 74, 104 (quoted with Herakleitos 68) are often-quoted verses on the favourite topic of the elements; lines 342-343 are quoted with Herakleitos 49, lines 16-17 with Parmenides 28-30 and Herakleitos 111, and it is quite probable that Clement found the topical groups of quotations ready to his hand. Empedokles 26 f., 55 f., 81, 130 f., are all introductory lines, and these too may have been collected by some earlier writer. We may conclude, then, that many of the citations in Clement were not taken from the original works, but that some may have been; the most important fact is that Clement transcribes his quotations with great faithfulness.

§ 10. The citations given in the works of Sextus Empiricus are important because they are in a measure independent of the Stoic line of tradition; we may even say with confidence that some of them are cited from the original works. For Herakleitos there is only one important series of fragments, namely that found in adv. Math. vii. §§ 126-134. Fragments 52 and 54 of Herakleitos are indeed mentioned in a series of epigrams with no name attached to them (Pyrrh. i. 55), and a little later (Pyrrh. iii. 115 and 230) there is an allusion to the well-known Fr. 42 and a statement of Herakleitos’ opinion as to life and death (cf. Fr. 78). The discussion adv. Math. vii. §§ 126-134 is a statement of the doctrine of sense-perception which Sextus attributes to Herakleitos. Diels has given good reasons (Dox. 209-211) for believing that this passage is based on Aenesidemus, a skeptic philosopher with strong Herakleitean leanings of the first century B.C. In it are contained the full form of Fr. 2 (cited in part by other writers) and Fr. 4 and 92 (with comment based on a longer passage); there is also a phrase reminding the reader of Fr. 77 in § 130. This is the fullest extant material for reconstructing the introduction to Herakleitos’ book, and was evidently based on the text of Herakleitos. While it is cited quite accurately, it is probable that Sextus took the citation from the same source as the rest of the discussion; still, when we remember Sextus’ fondness for citing proœmiums, we cannot say definitely that he did not take it himself from the work of Herakleitos.

Xenophanes is cited in passages varying in length from one to four lines. Most of these passages are not known from other writers or known only from late Homeric commentators. Where the same passage is cited twice, there is no variation except in the arrangement of the lines. Fr. vii. is given in part twice—once lines 3-4, and again lines 1, 2, and 4 (see supra p. 66).—From Parmenides (in addition to the line 132 given by Plato and Aristotle) Sextus gives the proœmium of his work. Although earlier editors have extensively rearranged this passage, I believe it is substantially correct in Sextus, and I see no reason to doubt that it was taken from the work itself. The citation of other lines before 53 by Plato and by Simplicius confirms the suspicion, however, that Sextus had omitted something at this point. From Empedokles’ main philosophical work Sextus gives a portion of the proœmium (lines 2-23), as well as four lines from the introduction to the καθάρματα. It is reasonable to believe that these lines with 428-435 were cited from the original poem; the only errors are copyists’ blunders. Sextus also cites Empedokles 33-35 and 78-80. These are much copied lines, and the form in Sextus includes some obvious errors, e.g. ἀήρ for αἰθήρ (l. 78) and φιλία for φιλότης (l. 80), (cf. ἤπιον l. 79)—errors which very likely were found in the source from which Sextus drew the lines. We may conclude that Sextus cited sometimes from the original, sometimes at second hand; and that his citations reproduce his source accurately except that he sometimes omits verses from their connection.

§ 11. The quotations in the Refutatio omnium haeresium, which is now attributed to Hippolytos, include some that are very accurate and others of which the text is hopeless, an anomaly that is very difficult to explain. In the fifth book one phrase reminds the reader of Herakleitos 71, while Herakleitos 68 a is quoted with the author’s name, and 101 without it. In the sixth book there is an allusion to two forms of fire (Hera. 21), and Herakleitos 29 combined with 95 is quoted under the name of Pythagoras. Most of the quotations from Herakleitos, however, are closely grouped in ix. ch. 9-10. Some of these are phrases familiar in earlier writers (e.g. Hera. 3, 47, and 69); 2, 44, 45, and 35 are passages of some length which Hippolytos gives in accurate form; 24 is accompanied by a Stoic explanation, and probably the phraseology of 28 and 36 is Stoic; in most of the citations in this group the text is very carefully given, even to the connecting particles, but besides the fragments in Stoic form just mentioned, the text of 123 is corrupted beyond possibility of restoration, and 58 is almost as bad. These fragments are consistently interpreted as anticipating the views of a Christian sect, and it is possible that the κρινέει of 26 is due to this influence rather than to the Stoics. Bywater (p. ix) suggests that Hippolytos drew his quotations directly from the work of Herakleitos; but it is not easy to regard the difference in accuracy as wholly a difference in the accuracy of one man’s copying.

The quotations from Empedokles, as indeed from other poets, show that Hippolytos was often very careless. The omission of a word (e.g. lines 334, 335 ap. Hipp. 165, l. 84 ap. 246) is too common to be attributed wholly to the carelessness of copyists, nor would the rest of the text of Hippolytos justify this supposition. Lines 33-35 are quoted twice (p. 246 and p. 318), and the last line differs in the two cases; such a change as from τέγγει to σπόνδε (p. 313) is not one that a copyist would be very likely to make. On the other hand, it is hardly conceivable that the errors in ll. 110 f. ap. p. 247, 222 f. ap. p. 251, 338 f. ap. p. 254 existed in any text that Hippolytos copied. The only possible explanation for this phenomenon is that sometimes Hippolytos quoted from memory, paying no attention either to metre or to phraseology, and sometimes (as in his quotations from Herakleitos generally) from either the original or a source that was very close to the original. Since so many of the Empedoklean passages are not cited by any other writer, we may suppose that Hippolytos drew them from the original.

§ 12. Of the quotations in Diogenes Laertios from Herakleitos, Bywater says (p. x): ‘Laertium ... libro pervetusto usum esse nemo jam adfirmaverit.’ We do find four sentences of some length from Herakleitos, the genuineness of which is not questioned (Fr. 16, 17, 112, 114); it is noticeable that these fragments, together with the allusions to Fr. 33 and 119, all refer to particular men, and so possessed a special interest for the biographical writers, who were Diogenes’ main source. Three other fragments of more than two words are given by Diogenes (71, 100, and 103), and these are not found in any other Greek writer. The remaining fragments consist of only one or two words (22, 48, 62, 69, 80, 113), or are now regarded as spurious (131, 132). There is no reason to think that the fragments of Herakleitos contained in this work are not copied with reasonable accuracy; on the other hand, we may assume from what we know of Diogenes’ method of work that they were not drawn directly from the writings of Herakleitos.

Diogenes quotes Xenophanes xiv. 1-2, and Empedokles l. 6, in a series of passages on skepticism, Xen. xviii. in a series on Pythagoreanism; Fr. xxiv., the only one not found elsewhere, relates to the life of Xenophanes. From Parmenides are quoted lines 28-30 and 54-56. The last passage does not really illustrate the point for which it is quoted (the senses inexact), and our text of Diogenes contains two blunders from some copyist. Portions of the proœmium of Empedokles’ main work on philosophy (1, 24-32, ap. viii. 60 and 59) are mentioned in connection with the name of Satyros. It is pretty clear (ap. viii. 62) that a ‘Herakleitos’ is the source from which lines 352-363 are taken; if so, the statement viii. 54 that this is the beginning of the καθάρματα comes from the same writer. Lines 384-385 are quoted much in the form in which they appear in Athenaeos, though with one copyist’s error; from the same work of Empedokles we have also lines 355, 415, 417 in passages where Diogenes had just mentioned Timaeos. The familiar lines 35 and 67-68 are found here—line 35 in a very confused form. In general these lines from poetic writers show numerous small errors, which may be due to the state of our manuscripts. Both the fragments from Herakleitos and those in poetic form are of great value, though we are in the dark as to their immediate source.

§ 13. The works of neo-Platonic writers frequently mention the earlier philosophers, but yield few fragments of value. Plotinos refers to ten fragments of Herakleitos. Four of these (80, 82, 83, 85) have the form of quotations, and in two instances the name of Herakleitos is mentioned; they are, however, very short, and give no clue to their source. Sometimes Plotinos plays on words that were evidently known as Herakleitean, e.g. Fr. (47?), 54, 69, 80; or again an Herakleitean idea is stated in his own words, Fr. 32, 83, 99, 130. The manner in which these quotations and allusions are made shows that the phrases were very familiar, either in earlier writers or possibly in some collection of sayings. Line 81 b of Parmenides is quoted with no name; line 40 b is quoted with the author’s name, and is followed by an account of the context which shows that it was drawn from a passage of some length. From Empedokles we find only two phrases, taken from lines 381 and 382, that are worked into the text of Plotinos.

Porphyry quotes from Herakleitos only familiar phrases, and these in the briefest form (74 ap. de antr. nym. xi. and 72 ap. de antr. nym. x.). The phrases were so familiar that it was only necessary to suggest the idea (e.g. 56 ap. de antr. nym. xxix.) without mentioning the name of the philosopher. Parmenides is not so well known; Greeks and Egyptians, we read, say that he mentioned the two gates in his Physika (de antr. nym. xxiii.). Only the καθάρματα of Empedokles is quoted, but here Porphyry knows the subjects treated in the work (de abst. II. xxi.), and sometimes the full context of the passage he quotes (e.g. de antr. nym. viii.). In the case of lines 415-420 we are not sure that Porphyry was right in applying the verses to Parmenides; still, the quotations would seem to be taken directly from the καθάρματα and copied with fair accuracy.

Iamblichos draws a few quotations from his predecessors in the neo-Platonic school (Empedokles, lines 415-420 from Porphyry; and Herakleitos, Fr. 69, 82, 83 from Plotinos, if Stobaeos is correct in attributing this group of fragments to Iamblichos). Most of the allusions to fragments of Herakleitos, however, cannot be traced to this source. The combination of Herakleitos 29 and 95, which Hippolytos had attributed to Pythagoras, Iamblichos also attributes to the same thinker; his language, however, differs in detail from that used by Hippolytos. Two words of Herakleitos 114 (which had been cited by the Stoics and by Diogenes) are given, with the additional statement that Herakleitos gave laws to the Ephesians. Bywater’s number 128 is an allusion probably including a single word from Herakleitos, as does 129 also. Two words each from Fr. 11 and 12 (both found in Plutarch) are worked into the text of Iamblichos—in the former instance with the name of Herakleitos. Finally 105, which also appears in Plutarch, is given here in more accurate form. These references to Herakleitos, like those of the earlier neo-Platonists, are all made to fragments assumed to be familiar because they had been quoted often by earlier writers.

The writings of his predecessors in this same school are frequently mentioned by Proklos, but his quotations from pre-Sokratic thinkers seem not to be derived from them. In the commentary on Parmenides several scattered lines are quoted from the works of the original Parmenides. The quotations are very brief; they include in all only parts of six or seven lines, and sometimes these are cited more than once. It is therefore quite unlikely that Proklos drew them directly from the poem of Parmenides. In his commentary on the Timaeos Proklos uses the form of quotation from Herakleitos six times (alluding to Fr. 16, 32, 44, 68, 79, 80), but only 32 and 44 can be called quotations, while even these are very brief. On p. 106 E we find part of what Diogenes gives in connection with Fragment 80, but no part of 80 itself; 79 was cited by the early Christian writers, and Proklos interpreted it in the same manner that they had done; 68 also had been paraphrased in the source from which Proklos drew it. So far as Herakleitos is concerned, we see how far from their origin the tradition of the fragments had gone, but we get no new light on their original form.

A few lines of Parmenides we know only from Proklos. Verses 29-30 had been given by Diogenes and Clement, but some of the verses 33-40 are new. In these instances, as is usually the case with the quotations in Proklos, the text of the quotations is in a condition almost hopeless. Indeed, at p. 160 D a line and a half of Parmenides are filled out with half a line from Empedokles under the name of the former writer. From Empedokles only single lines (once two lines together) are given, and they aid but little in the reconstruction of the text. Proklos, like Plutarch, is very careful to cite the name of his authorities; but the text of the quotations is so carelessly reproduced that they are of little value.

§ 14. The commentators on Aristotle early began to illustrate his statements about earlier thinkers by passages copied from their works. Alexander of Aphrodisias and Joh. Philoponos seldom add fragments not contained in the works of Aristotle himself; but Simplicius copies long extracts, so that, except for Herakleitos, his commentaries are the most important source for our knowledge of the writings of the pre-Sokratic philosophers. There can be no doubt that most of these quotations—at least in his commentary on the Physics of Aristotle—were drawn from the original works. The most careful scrutiny of the passages from Zeno, Melissos, and Anaxagoras fails to reveal any reason for questioning their character as genuine quotations, except in the case of some of the fragments of Melissos. Pabst (and independently Burnet) has shown that the so-called Fragments 1-5 of Melissos, though given in the form of quotations, are in reality an epitome covering more briefly the same ground that is covered by the following fragments, and adding almost nothing to our knowledge of Melissos. It is wholly unlikely that Simplicius made this epitome himself, for that would be at variance with his ordinary method of work, and with his custom later in dealing with Melissos. So we are driven to assume either that he drew them from some epitome of Melissos to which he had access, or, what seems to me more probable, that he copied them from an earlier commentator, whose habit it was to condense his quotations rather than to copy them at full length. If now we examine the quotations in Simplicius’ commentary on the de caelo (Melissos Fr. 17 and numerous lines from Parmenides and Empedokles), it is noticeable that a considerable number of them occur also in the scholia to Aristotle. It is possible that as they appear in our scholia they all come from Simplicius. One long quotation (Melissos Fr. 17) is, however, taken by Eusebios from Aristokles, a much earlier commentator on Aristotle. This fact of course confirms the belief that earlier commentators on Aristotle accessible to Simplicius already contained quotations from the philosophers in question; and the presence in our scholia of so many fragments quoted by Simplicius on the de caelo would at least suggest an investigation of the question whether our scholia drew them from an earlier source than Simplicius—in other words, whether Simplicius did not in all probability take them from the commentaries of his predecessors. So when we find Parmenides line 78 ap. Simplicius, Physica 29, 18 in the form that Plato had quoted it, when we find line 60 ap. 120, 23 quoted from an indirect source (cf. p. 145, 4, where it is quoted in context), we may conclude that Simplicius took those quotations from Parmenides at second hand, and not improbably from earlier commentators on Aristotle. The quotations from Herakleitos are all of them in a late form, and show that Simplicius was not familiar with any work under the name of Herakleitos. Nor did Simplicius know Xenophanes at first hand. The two quotations from his poem occur in the discussion of a passage from Theophrastos, and are probably taken from him. The quotations show, however, that Simplicius knew at first hand the works of Zeno, Melissos, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, and Empedokles, and it remains to examine the numerous quotations from the last two thinkers in order to form some idea as to the probable accuracy of Simplicius’ method of quotation.

Stein in his attempt to restore the text of Parmenides finds numerous misarrangements of the lines and breaks where one or more lines have dropped out. Certainly there is evidence that Simplicius omitted four or more lines between 89 and 94, nor does he indicate the break in any way. Several times a phrase of his own is inserted in the middle of a line (e.g. Phys. 39, 28; 143, 22), and once a line is filled out metrically, according to our manuscripts, by a phrase which is generally regarded as a comment from Simplicius (Phys. 145, 16). The text itself of these fragments is often very dubious in our manuscripts (e.g. lines 96, 98, 100), but Simplicius may not be responsible for this. In our manuscripts also we read sometimes ωὐτός, sometimes αὐτός, and when either ὤν or ἐών (ὄντα or ἐόντα) is metrically possible, the shorter is usual; here again we cannot with any confidence hold that Simplicius is responsible.

The quotations from Empedokles shed more light on the method of Simplicius. Not infrequently lines are omitted in sequence, as two lines between 68 and 70 (Phys. 158, 1 f.), and again in the same quotation one line between 90 and 92, and two lines between 93 and 94. According to Bergk the line between 174 and 176 should be omitted (it is identical with 184); and Schneidewin inserts here line 175 (of Stein) from Stobaeos; the passage occurs twice in the same form in Simplicius, however (and once in the scholia to Aristotle), so that this error probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied. On p. 33, 19 of the Physica two passages from different parts of the poem of Empedokles are joined without break, and the end of line 95 (Stein 115) is modified to make the connection between the two passages. In two instances I believe that Simplicius (or some copyist) has repeated in a quotation some lines from the last previous quotation. On p. 159 of the Physica the end of the first quotation is repeated as the end of the second, except that a summary phrase is substituted for the last half-line; again on p. 160 (lines 6-8) we find three lines which had occurred in the last previous quotation, and which are inserted here with the change of a connecting word. Sometimes we can point out an error that probably existed in the text from which Simplicius copied, as in the case of line 175 mentioned above. Thus ἐδεῖτο in line 99, κῆρυξ in 93, βεβλάστηκε at 105, and probably ἤερος in 78 appear in repetitions of the same quotation at different points, and so may be assigned to the source of Simplicius. In other instances we may say that Simplicius copied carelessly, as in the case of line 89, which is corrected in the prose paraphrase, and possibly 138, where the curious text in the Physica may be corrected from the de caelo. The state of our manuscripts of Simplicius, however, is probably responsible for most of the numerous errors in the forms of words.

From this survey of the sources I have omitted the names of many writers who furnish some little addition to our knowledge of the fragments, for their method of quotation is relatively unimportant, nor have I thought it necessary to consider later writers who throw light only on the later history of the fragments. Accordingly I have not spoken of Eusebios, who repeats quotations from Plutarch and from Clement, or of Theodoret, who drew from Clement, or of Julian, who drew from Plutarch. Again, I have not spoken of Stobaeos, or Eustathios, or the scholia generally, as sources, for we are not at present able to determine the line of tradition for these fragments. I have, however, examined the more important sources of fragments, in order that the student may be able to estimate the relative value of the sources, both as to text and as to directness of transmission, in his own study of them.

II.

§ 15. Turning now to the doxographic tradition, we may state the problem as follows:—In the Placita philosophorum attributed to Plutarch, in the Eclogae physicae of Stobaeos, in fragments from Arius Didymos, in Hippolytos, and in other writers, we find copious statements as to the opinions of the early philosophers. These opinions shed light on many points not mentioned in the fragments of their writings now remaining, and so they have great importance for the student of their systems. At the same time they are often confused and unreliable. The problem is to determine the relation of these writers to each other, as well as to the source of the whole series, in order that we may estimate their relative value. This work has been most successfully accomplished in the Prolegomena, to Diels’ Doxographi Graeci, a work that is absolutely indispensable to the student of this subject. There is no occasion to reopen here a question that Diels has so successfully solved, but I propose to state briefly a few of the conclusions which the reader will find substantiated in the work of Diels.

The most obvious fact to one who takes up the study of the doxographic writers is that the Placita attributed to Plutarch, and the Eclogae physicae, which was originally a part of the Florilegium of Stobaeos, are intimately related; and when the two are printed side by side, as the reader finds them in the text of Diels, the likeness of the two is most striking. At the same time the two books are not identical, and each gives much material that the other omits. Stobaeos cannot have copied from the work attributed to Plutarch, for even in passages that occur in the Placita Stobaeos not infrequently gives the fuller form; nor can the writer of the Placita have copied from Stobaeos, for his work can be traced back nearly three centuries before the time of Stobaeos. It was used by Athenagoras in his defence of the Christians 177 A.D. (Dox. p. 4); it was mentioned by Theodoret (Dox. p. 47); and important corrections of the text are made by Diels on the authority of Eusebios, Cyril, and the pseudo-Galen, all of whom had used it. Theodoret (Therap. IV. 31, Dox. 47) mentions the epitome by Plutarch, but only after he has mentioned the Placita of Aetios, Ἀετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν, and it is this work of Aetios which Diels vindicates as the source both of Plutarch and of Stobaeos, while Theodoret also quotes from it occasionally. A careful study of these three writers and their methods enables Diels to reconstruct a large part of the work of Aetios; and it is the sections of this work bearing on the earlier philosophers which I have translated (see III. English Index under ‘Aetios’). Of Aetios himself almost nothing is known; the work assigned to him must have been written between the age of Augustus and the age of the Antonines (Dox. 100). It was in four books, divided into chapters by topics, and in each chapter the opinions of the philosophers were given not by schools but by affinity of their opinions.

§ 16. Fortunately we are in a position to say what was the beginning of that style of composition of which the work of Aetios is an example. Aristotle, as we have seen, paid considerable attention to the earlier thinkers and often stated their opinions as the introduction to his own position. A list of the works of his pupil and successor Theophrastos is given by Diogenes Laertios (v. 46, 48), and in the list there is mentioned a book in eighteen chapters περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν, and a little later another book in sixteen chapters of φυσικῶν δόξων. We have a long fragment de sensibus which Diels has edited in connection with the later doxographists (Dox. pp. 499 f.), and from this we can learn something of his method. In this fragment he discusses the opinions of his predecessors as to sense-perception, grouping them by affinity, and not chronologically or by schools. The work is done conscientiously, and is based on a study of the original writings of the thinkers he treats (v. supra, pp. 230 f.). Other fragments from the first book have been pointed out by Brandis and Usener (Analecta Theophrastea) in Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics; while we have also several pages preserved in Philo de incorrupt. mundi. In the first book, to judge from the fragments in Simplicius, Theophrastos arranged the earlier thinkers by schools and accompanied his statements with brief biographical notices (e.g. pp. 11, 257 supra). Such a work was of the greatest convenience to later writers, and especially to the compilers who were so numerous in the age of the decadence. In fact the whole doxographic tradition may be traced back to this work of Theophrastos.

In the last centuries of the pre-Christian era there was an unusual interest in the biographies of famous men. Apocryphal anecdotes were gathered from popular gossip, deduced from the works of these writers, or made up with no foundation at all. In the second century several writers of the peripatetic school wrote the lives of the philosophers after this fashion. We hear of βίοι by Hermippos and by Satyros, and of the διαδοχαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων of Satyros; and we are told that Herakleides of Lembos worked over what his immediate predecessors had collected. Phanias of Eresos is one of the ‘authorities’ of this school. Much of this material has come down to us in the work of Diogenes Laertios.

On the book of Theophrastos, and on the ‘Lives’ or the ‘Successions of the philosophers,’ as they were often called, the later doxographic writers based their work. Even in Diogenes Laertios there is material from both sources, and we can define some fragments almost in Theophrastos’ own words. In the Philosophumena of Hippolytos the two sources are pretty clearly distinguished: chapters 1-4 and 10 (on Thales, Pythagoras, Empedokles, Herakleitos and Parmenides, see III. English Index under ‘Hippolytos’) are made up of personal anecdotes such as writers of the lives were eager to collect and to repeat; chapters 6-8 and 11 (on Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Xenophanes) come indirectly from the work of Theophrastos. The Stromateis attributed by Eusebios to Plutarch (see III. English Index under ‘Plutarch,’ and Dox. pp. 579 f.) are like the last-mentioned chapters of Hippolytos, though the language is often more careless.

A comparison of Aetios with Hippolytos, the Stromateis, and the doxographic material in Cicero and Censorinus (from Varro) makes it clear that the Placita of Aetios are not based directly on the work of Theophrastos. Indeed (Dox. p. 100, and pp. 178 f.) it is evident from an examination of the work of Aetios by itself that much of his material is drawn from Stoic and Epicurean sources. As the main source for what remains after Stoic and Epicurean passages have been cut out, Diels postulates an earlier Placita (Vetusta placita, pp. 215 f.). He finds traces of this in the work of Varro as used by Censorinus, in Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, and in some later writers.

§ 17. Résumé. The doxographic tradition starts with the work of Theophrastos on the opinions of his predecessors. On this work is based immediately the Vetusta placita; on the Vetusta placita is based the Placita of Aetios, and there are traces of its use by later writers; the Placita of Aetios may be partially reconstructed from Plutarch’s Placita and Stobaeos’ Eclogae. Again, using Theophrastos and gathering anecdotes from every side, writers of the second century B.C. wrote the lives of the philosophers. A line of tradition probably independent of the Placita just considered appears in the work of Hippolytos, who used now the work of Theophrastos, now the lives; in Diogenes Laertios, where material from most various sources is indiscriminately mixed; and in the Stromateis attributed to Plutarch by Eusebios, which are related to the better material of Hippolytos. Simplicius used Theophrastos directly. Finally in the fragments of Philodemos and the related material in Cicero’s Lucullus and De natura deorum we find traces of a use of Theophrastos either by Philodemos himself, or in a common source of both Cicero and Philodemos—probably a Stoic epitome of Theophrastos made by the Phaedros whom Cicero mentions.

FOOTNOTES